<blockquote> I am not frustrated though very concerned. Misrepresentation, when millions was obtained , is no joke. All it takes is a few upset people and a lawyer wanting an easy case. This could slow or stop production, and that I do not want, as I am very excited about this game. Hell even reports to the BBB can cause headaches. I hope they dot their Is and cross their Ts with this. </blockquote>
That's a good point. Others might view it as squabbling over semantics, but I wouldn't want an issue of wording to cause problems that delay the game's production. I hope the Kickstarter campaign doesn't end up as a double-edged sword that both benefits and hampers the game's development. I know some people in KS are commenting that they're upset over 'false advertising,' so even though this matter doesn't seem to bother many on this forum, it doesn't mean it's a trivial matter that can be taken lightly.
Actually, I don't think there will be a strong legal case. Why? It's a kickstarter and it's disclosed that not everything promised will be delivered. We all take the risk making the pledge, even if they don't come out with an actual game, we have no legal recourse. I doubt not delivering the mount will be something that will hold any water. It's more of an ethical issue for being transparent.
Steven has explained that it should of been worded differently and cleared up confusion surrounding the backer dyes - thankyou. I believe anything beyond that is squabbling over semantics. It was clearly misleading but not the end of the world (for me anyway).
@Nazareth What evidence do you have that they (Interpid) originally intended to give everyone mounts but changed their minds when some said 'P2W'? Just interested how you came to this conclusion after Steven's response.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/5/#post-29243">Mr.C wrote:</a></div>Steven has explained that it should of been worded differently and cleared up confusion surrounding the backer dyes – thankyou. I believe anything beyond that is squabbling over semantics. It was clearly misleading but not the end of the world (for me anyway).
<a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/nazareth/" rel="nofollow">@nazareth</a> What evidence do you have that they (Interpid) originally intended to give everyone mounts but changed their minds when some said ‘P2W’? Just interested how you came to this conclusion after Steven’s response.
Just my two cents guys. Cheers.
</blockquote>
Conclusion based on their own words. A live stream where bacon showed an image of the Moonstrider Mule and the response was that it will be an in game mount that some backers will receive. Then all the the package rewards and stretch reward, not one mentions skins, unless it is weapon and armor.
<blockquote>Actually, I don’t think there will be a strong legal case. Why? It’s a kickstarter and it’s disclosed that not everything promised will be delivered. We all take the risk making the pledge, even if they don’t come out with an actual game, we have no legal recourse. I doubt not delivering the mount will be something that will hold any water. It’s more of an ethical issue for being transparent.</blockquote>
I'm not an expert on Kickstarter, but after re-reading the FAQ on KS, it does seem like you're most likely right, so my main worry is assuaged. Glad to hear it won't draw Intrepid into anything that'll delay the game. That said, it does seem like many people plan on dropping down from higher tiers but my guess is that others will snatch up the pledges anyway =/
Conclusion based on their own words. A live stream where bacon showed an image of the Moonstrider Mule and the response was that it will be an in game mount that some backers will receive. Then all the the package rewards and stretch reward, not one mentions skins, unless it is weapon and armor. This isn't terms that long time gamers mess up.
The game is still in early development, the devs are still working out ideas and systems. You can tell by the way they answered the mount/ skin questions that they still have not set anything in stone related to mounts and when you will earn them. Yes they threw out a possible scenario of a level 5 quest.. but since they do not actually know how fast we will level an what the max level will be this number was just an example.
So in theory if there does turn out to be a level 5 quest and the reward is a mount then you would then be able to use your exclusive mount, if you choose. Later on when you meet the requirements for your water mount you would then be able to use your exclusive water mount. Now let's say we get thru alpha and find out people are leveling at a different pace than expected, well then the Mount Quest gets moved to level 12 and when you complete the quest at level 12.. you get your mount.
I would guess from past experiences with games at this stage of development that most of the KS reward items are nothing more than ideas and at most just basic artist renderings.. this includes the outfits, armors, weapons, freeholds, pets,mounts etc. We may not see the final in game items till later on in alpha or even beta as graphical items like these are lower on the list. Right now their focus is on the core systems and mechanics of the game.
What if... and this is purely fiction.... when they first put together the KS rewards the mount system was just a basic idea of earn mounts from quest, drops and buy in game. Then after throwing ideas around they decide to treat the mounts like the freeholds and costumes, adding the flex ability to skin a mount to fit your taste. In their eyes this just made your mount reward even more exciting.. now you can use your KS mount thru the whole life of the game instead of being an item you would have leveled out and left in your inventory except for special events. I would welcome this outcome and hope and encourage them to do this with all areas of the game.
I see this with every project I have been involved with when the developers open the game up during alpha stage and this is not even to that stage, some people just do not understand things are going to change.. whole systems could end up being revamped or even scrapped. I cringe when people say they can't wait to play alpha.. alpha is for testing and putting the systems thru the ringer.. trying our best to break things and find the weak spots.
Meh.. all I can can say is that I personally knew what I was getting into with the KS rewards with a game this early in development and really based my backing on having as early an access as I could afford so I could help test and shape this game into the vision I share with the development team.
1) Well I'll agree they appear to have misled you- through your own assumptions and speculations. What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is <strong>cosmetic.</strong> Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .. .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
1) Well I'll agree they appear to have misled you- through your own assumptions and speculations. What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is cosmetic. Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
It's a term that long time gamers messed up because Ashes is significantly different from "long time" games. People think they understand the terms even though many of the terms and concepts are significantly different than what they have meant in previous games. Admittedly the devs aren't adept at being consistent with how they use terms - which is an issue for a small team striving to be transparent with out a professional PR team.
I actually think having this thread go on for abit more would be beneficial so more people can learn that thier mount reward is actually a skin reward.
I think they really did intended for mounts to be given out, but halfway through KS, just as Maddstone suggested, they realize it conflicted with thier p2w philosophy and changed their minds.
The only problem is they did not make it clear they changed their mind and it only came up by accident in their q&a. No one knew and many backers were misled.
I dont have any gripe about getting a skin but on principle alone, i think they need to make it clear to all backers what they are getting. A skin, not a mount. Along with their p2w philosophy, they also express being clear, transparent and not make any false promises. No one will hold it against them but people deserve clarification on the false promise of a mount.
I have to say it again, im backing braver of the world not for the mount but for the lifetime sub and to support the game development. Please dont make assumptions that only people who pledge alittle are concern about mounts. People earn their money and they have the right to use it in clear and transparent mutual contract, no matter how few dollars they have.
The whole semantic thing i can let go, im not looking to start beef with people. I hope they make a psa for all backers, maybe through email and their next q&a the situation with mounts. I doubt people will change their pledge cause i do see skins as more beneficial, but i cannot speak for everyone. Even if its one person, if this causes them to remove their pledge, that person should have a right to govern their money as they see fit, and i will not hide facts from them so i can benefit from their non-consensual pledge.
I wasn't going to reply but i need to address this:
@Shririkuryu "I have to say it again, im backing braver of the world not for the mount but for the lifetime sub and to support the game development. Please dont make assumptions that only people who pledge alittle are concern about mounts. People earn their money and they have the right to use it in clear and transparent mutual contract, no matter how few dollars they have."
Sorry, but what are you talking about? I made no mention of people who pledge a little are the only one's concerned about mounts??
@Dygz Backers were misled by the word 'mount' opposed to skin. That has been addressed in Stevens post.
Backers were not misled. Some backers misinferred the meaning of the term "mounts". You are correct - that has been addressed in Steven's post: "Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better." Case closed.
Ya tbh the lifetime sub means a lot more to me than some "LOOK AT ME PRETTY MOUNT!!!" reward. I never expected much from the mounts anyways I'm more interested in the new player race at 2.5mil. So ya... Let's work towards that as the goal rather than some cosmetic bs that you will get bored with in a few weeks of release.
@Dygz Case is not closed because you say it is lol. Referring to your quote 'definitely not an attempt to mislead' - does not mean people have not been mislead. The difference between a mount and a skin is that you ride a mount. You can't ride a skin. A skin needs to be applied to a mount. They are two different things. The fact is that some people felt misled - if you didn't good for you!
I am happy that those happen to be skins instead of actual mounts. If mounts stats & breeding are a thing then being able to swap the backer skins that you like and apply them to your most "relevant" mount, stats wise, is a good thing. Nothing more annoying then getting an actual mount to see it lagging behind after a few months, only to be relegated to afk town parading.
Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better. We are posting new FAQ’s for this on the project itself today.
Breakdown of Mounts from Kickstarter;
– Land Mounts will first be obtained through an early quest that is present for players within the starting areas. – Once you have obtained your mount in the game, you will be able to assign your cosmetic skin from Kickstarter to the character of your choice from your account management screen. Once this skin has been assigned to the character, you may use the skin to apply the appearance of your Kickstarter mount to the mount you have earned in game. This does not remove the skin itself, as you can apply it again in the future to a different mount. – If you wish to remove the skin from a character on your account, and assign the skin item to another character you may do so. But it can only ever be active on one character/mount. -Dawnbreaker is a mount skin as well, that will be used in the same fashion, but is only applicable to a certain class of mounts. – Underwater Mounts are also used in the same fashion but are only applicable to underwater class mounts.
Dyes are normally one time use. The Kickstarter exclusive dye set, is a set of unique colors that will not be obtainable for players who did not participate in the Kickstarter. They work as follows.
-Normal dyes in game are one time use items, that apply a cosmetic color change on certain items/gear. The Kickstarter Dye Set is assigned to a character from your account management page. These Kickstarter dyes are not usable as normal dyes are. Instead you may use these dyes to override the color of another dye obtained in game. They do not expire, so you may continually override dye colors through the lifetime of your character. Once a dye has been overridden it becomes a bound dye to your character, so the colors cannot be sold for in-game benefit. When a item is sold or transferred color changes are reverted.
Hope this clarifies some stuff!
<3 -
</blockquote>
I assume you are aware your kickstarter project is now in violation of rule 2 of KS where projects must be honest and clearly presented. The fact you've changed it from you don't get a mount but you get a skin for a mount that a player may never obtain when you already have clear definition between a skin and an actual mount based on your tiers (Angelic skins VS actual mounts).
It'll be interesting to see what else starts to show up as questionable during the rest of your development cycle once you've gotten everyone money. Keep adding to the fire of your rocky start, I guess this game will have some entertainment value regardless if it comes to fruition.
The current KS project is now actually technically in violation of rule # 2 where KS projects must be honest and clearly presented. There is clear definition between a mount and a skin solely based on their wording alone in the tiers. There is no need for clarification because the current wording is pretty definitive. People pledged based on the rewards and a "mount" in every MMO has literally meant the ACTUAL mount.
Either way I know quite a few people who have reported the KS page for violating the rules of KS so if KS actually does something it will be a nice lesson to people for either blatant back-peddling or false advertising/promises. Either way though it's simply adding to the fire of the already rocky start and regardless of weather or not this game actually comes to fruition I'm going to bet more things like this will arise so at least there will still be some entertainment value coming from this so my $500 isn't totally wasted.
Yes some people were misled. This is a fact not an opinion
They wouldn't have the Angel and Demon skins listed as Skins and not costumes for example if there wasn't a clear distinction between skins and something else I.E.- Mounts
Mounts implies an actual mount. A skin covers and "bedazzles" Mounts.
There was no misinterpretation on the backers behalf. This was simply a bad wording issue on whoever designed the Backer Goal page and they most likely didn't realize the mistake. Which is okay because Steven cleared it up!
We will still get our pseudo exclusive "Mounts" Just not receive them as the Pledges say we receive them. But regardless I feel much better about since Steven Cleared the air on it.
I do feel bad for Braver of World as they got screwed a bit for getting an Epic skin mount without having any real definite way of using it without having the luck of getting a Rare epic mount. Which means depending on RNG they may Never get what is promised to them
I think most, if not all, backers would agree that the skin is ultimately a better option than the mount itself for all the right reasons. This post was a knee jerk reaction to hearing the KS reward was not an actual mount. After considering a mount could be construed as a p2w element, which btw, this team has been very adamant about keeping out of this game, I agree that skins are a better reward in this case. (skin or mount won't change my pledge)
For the "whistle blowers" out there, keep in mind, these are rewards for our putting our faith into these brave souls creating a game we all want to play. I would hope we all understand the risks associated with putting our money behind the project.
And for those who insist on saying they are the same thing, consider this: Using the Braver of the World tier as an example, by the wording in the KS, your "mount" reward for backing the game would be: <strong>Backer only aquatic Mount Dawnbreaker Epic Mount White Runic Steed Obsidian Stallion Spectral Mare mount Moonstrider Mule</strong>
These would have been actual mounts we did not have to purchase or otherwise acquire in game. What does Epic in Epic mount mean? To most gamers it means a faster or otherwise better than normal mount. Now, change the word to skin. We now have to purchase or acquire a faster or otherwise better mount to place our epic skin onto. How much will the aquatic mount cost? I don't know but all backers will still have to buy, breed, or tame one to apply their skin to.
As I said before, I'm ok with this and I think most backers would be as well. It is simply important to have the clarification because there is a clear indication made on the KS where skins are the reward. I inferred nothing.
It wasn't my intention to start a shit storm so for that, I'm sorry @Steven. My point was, words do matter. Unless, of course, you are the Donald.
@emo It's all good. Buyer beware - especially with regard to Kickstarters for MMORPGs. People should probably be doing more research besides what appears on a Kickstarter page before they pledge money.
The main thing the devs state when describing Ashes is their goal to not be P2W. Paying real world cash for a faster mount is the epitome of P2W in an MMORPG - especially an MMORPG without fast travel. The devs constantly state that things we pay for with real world cash will be cosmetic. When the devs actually describe the KS mounts it's all about appearance. Better than a normal mount for real world cash means better in appearance. It's not rocket science to figure that out.
But, yes, clarification is always good. Shouldn't be a shit storm.
The primary lesson learned from this kerfluffle is that the concepts and terms we think we know from previous MMORPGs will be significantly different in Ashes. We're going to have to be diligent about differentiating between Artisan roles and Adventurer roles and their subsets: archetypes. As well as "classes" v "professions". We can't just keep using the same terms the we have in previous MMORPGs when they will actually have different applications in Ashes.
That's an endeavor fans and devs will have to pursue together. Redefining the old terms for how they apply to Ashes.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/7/#post-29587">Dygz wrote:</a></div><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/emo/" rel="nofollow">@emo</a> Shouldn’t be a shit storm. </blockquote>
No, it entirely deserves to be a shit storm. The way it's worded and been handled screams of deliberate misleading to generate KS pledges.
They can try to spin it however they want but the wording is entirely clear. There is no room for misinterpretation from the backer in this particular scenario. If it was meant to be a skin it should have been marketed as a skin along with the rest of the skin based rewards in the pledges. At the end of the day if the devs are unable to clearly articulate in their own KS what their intention is there are bigger issues ahead because the KS should have been the easiest part of all this if they weren't intentionally deceiving people.
You can try to say concepts and terms specific to this game are unique, which honestly... they aren't (The only thing remotely unique is the monster coin system). If you honestly believe every single concept this game is using is unique to this game you really haven't played many games, let alone MMO's.
I really don't see the problem. This forces kickstarter backers to earn their mounts just like everyone else. It removes any chance for p2w complaints by non kickstarter backers.
So what if you have to click an item to swap the mounts appearance for another? It's better than seeing hundreds or thousands of p2w posts. I just hope they make it so you only have to click it once, and limits it to one mount only, so in order to use it again you would have to kill/delete the mount.
They could do it so when you apply the skin to a mount, it changes that mount to whatever mount the skin was, and once the mount is dead/deleted you can re-apply it to a different one. The mount should be soulbound too so people can't trade or sell them. Because that would be p2w.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/7/#post-29587">Dygz wrote:</a></div><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/emo/" rel="nofollow">@emo</a> Shouldn’t be a shit storm. </blockquote>
No, it entirely deserves to be a shit storm. The way it's worded and been handled screams of deliberate misleading to generate KS pledges.
They can try to spin it however they want but the wording is entirely clear. There is no room for misinterpretation from the backer in this particular scenario. If it was meant to be a skin it should have been marketed as a skin along with the rest of the skin based rewards in the pledges. At the end of the day if the devs are unable to clearly articulate in their own KS what their intention is there are bigger issues ahead because the KS should have been the easiest part of all this if they weren't intentionally deceiving people.
You can try to say concepts and terms specific to this game are unique, which honestly... they aren't (The only thing remotely unique is the monster coin system). If you honestly believe every single concept this game is using is unique to this game and thus are somehow different to the numerous games that have come before it you really haven't played many games, let alone MMO's.
Comments
<blockquote>
I am not frustrated though very concerned. Misrepresentation, when millions was obtained , is no joke. All it takes is a few upset people and a lawyer wanting an easy case. This could slow or stop production, and that I do not want, as I am very excited about this game. Hell even reports to the BBB can cause headaches. I hope they dot their Is and cross their Ts with this.
</blockquote>
That's a good point. Others might view it as squabbling over semantics, but I wouldn't want an issue of wording to cause problems that delay the game's production. I hope the Kickstarter campaign doesn't end up as a double-edged sword that both benefits and hampers the game's development. I know some people in KS are commenting that they're upset over 'false advertising,' so even though this matter doesn't seem to bother many on this forum, it doesn't mean it's a trivial matter that can be taken lightly.
Actually, I don't think there will be a strong legal case. Why? It's a kickstarter and it's disclosed that not everything promised will be delivered. We all take the risk making the pledge, even if they don't come out with an actual game, we have no legal recourse. I doubt not delivering the mount will be something that will hold any water. It's more of an ethical issue for being transparent.
@Nazareth What evidence do you have that they (Interpid) originally intended to give everyone mounts but changed their minds when some said 'P2W'? Just interested how you came to this conclusion after Steven's response.
Just my two cents guys. Cheers.
<a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/nazareth/" rel="nofollow">@nazareth</a> What evidence do you have that they (Interpid) originally intended to give everyone mounts but changed their minds when some said ‘P2W’? Just interested how you came to this conclusion after Steven’s response.
Just my two cents guys. Cheers.
</blockquote>
Conclusion based on their own words. A live stream where bacon showed an image of the Moonstrider Mule and the response was that it will be an in game mount that some backers will receive. Then all the the package rewards and stretch reward, not one mentions skins, unless it is weapon and armor.
<blockquote>Actually, I don’t think there will be a strong legal case. Why? It’s a kickstarter and it’s disclosed that not everything promised will be delivered. We all take the risk making the pledge, even if they don’t come out with an actual game, we have no legal recourse. I doubt not delivering the mount will be something that will hold any water. It’s more of an ethical issue for being transparent.</blockquote>
I'm not an expert on Kickstarter, but after re-reading the FAQ on KS, it does seem like you're most likely right, so my main worry is assuaged. Glad to hear it won't draw Intrepid into anything that'll delay the game. That said, it does seem like many people plan on dropping down from higher tiers but my guess is that others will snatch up the pledges anyway =/
Conclusion based on their own words. A live stream where bacon showed an image of the Moonstrider Mule and the response was that it will be an in game mount that some backers will receive. Then all the the package rewards and stretch reward, not one mentions skins, unless it is weapon and armor. This isn't terms that long time gamers mess up.
The game is still in early development, the devs are still working out ideas and systems. You can tell by the way they answered the mount/ skin questions that they still have not set anything in stone related to mounts and when you will earn them. Yes they threw out a possible scenario of a level 5 quest.. but since they do not actually know how fast we will level an what the max level will be this number was just an example.
So in theory if there does turn out to be a level 5 quest and the reward is a mount then you would then be able to use your exclusive mount, if you choose. Later on when you meet the requirements for your water mount you would then be able to use your exclusive water mount. Now let's say we get thru alpha and find out people are leveling at a different pace than expected, well then the Mount Quest gets moved to level 12 and when you complete the quest at level 12.. you get your mount.
I would guess from past experiences with games at this stage of development that most of the KS reward items are nothing more than ideas and at most just basic artist renderings.. this includes the outfits, armors, weapons, freeholds, pets,mounts etc. We may not see the final in game items till later on in alpha or even beta as graphical items like these are lower on the list. Right now their focus is on the core systems and mechanics of the game.
What if... and this is purely fiction.... when they first put together the KS rewards the mount system was just a basic idea of earn mounts from quest, drops and buy in game. Then after throwing ideas around they decide to treat the mounts like the freeholds and costumes, adding the flex ability to skin a mount to fit your taste. In their eyes this just made your mount reward even more exciting.. now you can use your KS mount thru the whole life of the game instead of being an item you would have leveled out and left in your inventory except for special events. I would welcome this outcome and hope and encourage them to do this with all areas of the game.
I see this with every project I have been involved with when the developers open the game up during alpha stage and this is not even to that stage, some people just do not understand things are going to change.. whole systems could end up being revamped or even scrapped. I cringe when people say they can't wait to play alpha.. alpha is for testing and putting the systems thru the ringer.. trying our best to break things and find the weak spots.
Meh.. all I can can say is that I personally knew what I was getting into with the KS rewards with a game this early in development and really based my backing on having as early an access as I could afford so I could help test and shape this game into the vision I share with the development team.
Peace
Maddstone
Pretty weak if this isn't really going to be given out.
What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is <strong>cosmetic.</strong> Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .. .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is cosmetic. Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
But i also think this has gone on long enough so i'll refrain from posting more. :)
I look forward to the next stream.
People think they understand the terms even though many of the terms and concepts are significantly different than what they have meant in previous games.
Admittedly the devs aren't adept at being consistent with how they use terms - which is an issue for a small team striving to be transparent with out a professional PR team.
I actually think having this thread go on for abit more would be beneficial so more people can learn that thier mount reward is actually a skin reward.
I think they really did intended for mounts to be given out, but halfway through KS, just as Maddstone suggested, they realize it conflicted with thier p2w philosophy and changed their minds.
The only problem is they did not make it clear they changed their mind and it only came up by accident in their q&a. No one knew and many backers were misled.
I dont have any gripe about getting a skin but on principle alone, i think they need to make it clear to all backers what they are getting. A skin, not a mount. Along with their p2w philosophy, they also express being clear, transparent and not make any false promises. No one will hold it against them but people deserve clarification on the false promise of a mount.
I have to say it again, im backing braver of the world not for the mount but for the lifetime sub and to support the game development. Please dont make assumptions that only people who pledge alittle are concern about mounts. People earn their money and they have the right to use it in clear and transparent mutual contract, no matter how few dollars they have.
The whole semantic thing i can let go, im not looking to start beef with people. I hope they make a psa for all backers, maybe through email and their next q&a the situation with mounts. I doubt people will change their pledge cause i do see skins as more beneficial, but i cannot speak for everyone. Even if its one person, if this causes them to remove their pledge, that person should have a right to govern their money as they see fit, and i will not hide facts from them so i can benefit from their non-consensual pledge.
Adding the word "skin" should clear up any confusion. Sure.
@Shririkuryu "I have to say it again, im backing braver of the world not for the mount but for the lifetime sub and to support the game development. Please dont make assumptions that only people who pledge alittle are concern about mounts. People earn their money and they have the right to use it in clear and transparent mutual contract, no matter how few dollars they have."
Sorry, but what are you talking about? I made no mention of people who pledge a little are the only one's concerned about mounts??
@Dygz Backers were misled by the word 'mount' opposed to skin. That has been addressed in Stevens post.
You are correct - that has been addressed in Steven's post: "Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better."
Case closed.
The difference between a mount and a skin is that you ride a mount. You can't ride a skin. A skin needs to be applied to a mount. They are two different things.
The fact is that some people felt misled - if you didn't good for you!
If mounts stats & breeding are a thing then being able to swap the backer skins that you like and apply them to your most "relevant" mount, stats wise, is a good thing.
Nothing more annoying then getting an actual mount to see it lagging behind after a few months, only to be relegated to afk town parading.
Sorry. Only the first paragraph was meant for you. Everything else was a rant in general.
Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better. We are posting new FAQ’s for this on the project itself today.
Breakdown of Mounts from Kickstarter;
– Land Mounts will first be obtained through an early quest that is present for players within the starting areas.
– Once you have obtained your mount in the game, you will be able to assign your cosmetic skin from Kickstarter to the character of your choice from your account management screen. Once this skin has been assigned to the character, you may use the skin to apply the appearance of your Kickstarter mount to the mount you have earned in game. This does not remove the skin itself, as you can apply it again in the future to a different mount.
– If you wish to remove the skin from a character on your account, and assign the skin item to another character you may do so. But it can only ever be active on one character/mount.
-Dawnbreaker is a mount skin as well, that will be used in the same fashion, but is only applicable to a certain class of mounts.
– Underwater Mounts are also used in the same fashion but are only applicable to underwater class mounts.
Dyes are normally one time use. The Kickstarter exclusive dye set, is a set of unique colors that will not be obtainable for players who did not participate in the Kickstarter. They work as follows.
-Normal dyes in game are one time use items, that apply a cosmetic color change on certain items/gear. The Kickstarter Dye Set is assigned to a character from your account management page. These Kickstarter dyes are not usable as normal dyes are. Instead you may use these dyes to override the color of another dye obtained in game. They do not expire, so you may continually override dye colors through the lifetime of your character. Once a dye has been overridden it becomes a bound dye to your character, so the colors cannot be sold for in-game benefit. When a item is sold or transferred color changes are reverted.
Hope this clarifies some stuff!
<3
-
</blockquote>
I assume you are aware your kickstarter project is now in violation of rule 2 of KS where projects must be honest and clearly presented. The fact you've changed it from you don't get a mount but you get a skin for a mount that a player may never obtain when you already have clear definition between a skin and an actual mount based on your tiers (Angelic skins VS actual mounts).
It'll be interesting to see what else starts to show up as questionable during the rest of your development cycle once you've gotten everyone money. Keep adding to the fire of your rocky start, I guess this game will have some entertainment value regardless if it comes to fruition.
Either way I know quite a few people who have reported the KS page for violating the rules of KS so if KS actually does something it will be a nice lesson to people for either blatant back-peddling or false advertising/promises. Either way though it's simply adding to the fire of the already rocky start and regardless of weather or not this game actually comes to fruition I'm going to bet more things like this will arise so at least there will still be some entertainment value coming from this so my $500 isn't totally wasted.
They wouldn't have the Angel and Demon skins listed as Skins and not costumes for example if there wasn't a clear distinction between skins and something else I.E.- Mounts
Mounts implies an actual mount. A skin covers and "bedazzles" Mounts.
There was no misinterpretation on the backers behalf. This was simply a bad wording issue on whoever designed the Backer Goal page and they most likely didn't realize the mistake. Which is okay because Steven cleared it up!
We will still get our pseudo exclusive "Mounts" Just not receive them as the Pledges say we receive them. But regardless I feel much better about since Steven Cleared the air on it.
I do feel bad for Braver of World as they got screwed a bit for getting an Epic skin mount without having any real definite way of using it without having the luck of getting a Rare epic mount. Which means depending on RNG they may Never get what is promised to them
For the "whistle blowers" out there, keep in mind, these are rewards for our putting our faith into these brave souls creating a game we all want to play. I would hope we all understand the risks associated with putting our money behind the project.
And for those who insist on saying they are the same thing, consider this:
Using the Braver of the World tier as an example, by the wording in the KS, your "mount" reward for backing the game would be:
<strong>Backer only aquatic Mount
Dawnbreaker Epic Mount
White Runic Steed
Obsidian Stallion
Spectral Mare mount
Moonstrider Mule</strong>
These would have been actual mounts we did not have to purchase or otherwise acquire in game. What does Epic in Epic mount mean? To most gamers it means a faster or otherwise better than normal mount. Now, change the word to skin. We now have to purchase or acquire a faster or otherwise better mount to place our epic skin onto. How much will the aquatic mount cost? I don't know but all backers will still have to buy, breed, or tame one to apply their skin to.
As I said before, I'm ok with this and I think most backers would be as well. It is simply important to have the clarification because there is a clear indication made on the KS where skins are the reward. I inferred nothing.
It wasn't my intention to start a shit storm so for that, I'm sorry @Steven. My point was, words do matter. Unless, of course, you are the Donald.
It's all good. Buyer beware - especially with regard to Kickstarters for MMORPGs.
People should probably be doing more research besides what appears on a Kickstarter page before they pledge money.
The main thing the devs state when describing Ashes is their goal to not be P2W.
Paying real world cash for a faster mount is the epitome of P2W in an MMORPG - especially an MMORPG without fast travel.
The devs constantly state that things we pay for with real world cash will be cosmetic.
When the devs actually describe the KS mounts it's all about appearance. Better than a normal mount for real world cash means better in appearance.
It's not rocket science to figure that out.
But, yes, clarification is always good.
Shouldn't be a shit storm.
The primary lesson learned from this kerfluffle is that the concepts and terms we think we know from previous MMORPGs will be significantly different in Ashes.
We're going to have to be diligent about differentiating between Artisan roles and Adventurer roles and their subsets: archetypes.
As well as "classes" v "professions". We can't just keep using the same terms the we have in previous MMORPGs when they will actually have different applications in Ashes.
That's an endeavor fans and devs will have to pursue together. Redefining the old terms for how they apply to Ashes.
Shouldn’t be a shit storm.
</blockquote>
No, it entirely deserves to be a shit storm. The way it's worded and been handled screams of deliberate misleading to generate KS pledges.
They can try to spin it however they want but the wording is entirely clear. There is no room for misinterpretation from the backer in this particular scenario. If it was meant to be a skin it should have been marketed as a skin along with the rest of the skin based rewards in the pledges. At the end of the day if the devs are unable to clearly articulate in their own KS what their intention is there are bigger issues ahead because the KS should have been the easiest part of all this if they weren't intentionally deceiving people.
You can try to say concepts and terms specific to this game are unique, which honestly... they aren't (The only thing remotely unique is the monster coin system). If you honestly believe every single concept this game is using is unique to this game you really haven't played many games, let alone MMO's.
So what if you have to click an item to swap the mounts appearance for another? It's better than seeing hundreds or thousands of p2w posts. I just hope they make it so you only have to click it once, and limits it to one mount only, so in order to use it again you would have to kill/delete the mount.
They could do it so when you apply the skin to a mount, it changes that mount to whatever mount the skin was, and once the mount is dead/deleted you can re-apply it to a different one. The mount should be soulbound too so people can't trade or sell them. Because that would be p2w.
Shouldn’t be a shit storm.
</blockquote>
No, it entirely deserves to be a shit storm. The way it's worded and been handled screams of deliberate misleading to generate KS pledges.
They can try to spin it however they want but the wording is entirely clear. There is no room for misinterpretation from the backer in this particular scenario. If it was meant to be a skin it should have been marketed as a skin along with the rest of the skin based rewards in the pledges. At the end of the day if the devs are unable to clearly articulate in their own KS what their intention is there are bigger issues ahead because the KS should have been the easiest part of all this if they weren't intentionally deceiving people.
You can try to say concepts and terms specific to this game are unique, which honestly... they aren't (The only thing remotely unique is the monster coin system). If you honestly believe every single concept this game is using is unique to this game and thus are somehow different to the numerous games that have come before it you really haven't played many games, let alone MMO's.