Single player mode

I am seeing an interesting interaction here. I may be way out of line here, but I really want to say this. One player states in forum, "I thought this would be a single-player game" and the answer is .. "It is, sort of .. in ways." Another player states, "I don't want to be attacked while I am away" and the answer comes, "But you were not hurt by it, so there is no issue." Berserker I see your points, but I also think some players seriously want a game where there is quite limited interaction.. or interaction on their own terms. I also understand that at this time we do not see the large picture, only a piece of it designed for alpha testing. But, I believe you may be defending the existing design instead of hearing people say that there are things that may prevent you from experiencing the game success you would like to have. And that we all want you to have. We are all your avid supporters.

 I created a second hero so one was north and one was south. I wanted to see the differences between the two continents. I did not see differences between the continents. Maybe there will be in live gaming, but I do not know your larger plans. The game play is designed a certain way, but there are those of us who absolutely prefer to accomplish the tasks at this point without interference from outside. We want to expand, we want to learn, we want to build, but at our own pace, not in competition with neighboring cells that prevent physical expansion. Can you design ... the north to be single player centered and the south to be multiple player centered? And since the game itself is going to be such a large world, can players not be stacked side by side but instead maybe evenly placed throughout the world so there are no neighbors? .. for those who do prefer this?. Is this a design issue? If the north and south were divided by player preference, we would be more comfortable knowing our neighbors understand our single player preferences... that they feel the same way.

I will get around to replying to the rest of this thread later, but I just wanted to say that this:

But the reality is - there were no choice to make TT2 single player game at all. The choice was to either make multiplayer online game with single-player features like you see it now or not making it at all.

Really wasn't clear at all from your discussions and teasers. In fact, I would say that you go out of your way to suggest otherwise. The FAQ should be changed so that it actually says that. This whole section

http://www.totemtribe.com/game/faq/#q_solo

doesn't even remotely say "hey, there's no single player mode".

Once again, if people are coming from TT1 and expecting the same thing, they will be disappointed, and I strongly recommend you make it clearer on the FAQ and elsewhere that multiplayer is the only option.

In fact, give me a week and I am happy to donate some time to rewriting the FAQ or whatever else to make it clearer to people that 'solo' isn't really playing solo.

Really wasn't clear at all from your discussions and teasers. In fact, I would say that you go out of your way to suggest otherwise. The FAQ should be changed so that it actually says that. This whole section

http://www.totemtribe.com/game/faq/#q_solo

Hmm im not the hardcore-original-TT-Fan so it seems i have a different look at all about this single-player discussion. But can you explain whats wrong with the Solo-section at the FAQ. Everything is like it is written there.

He has always been clear on this from the beginning :( that it would be multi player only. Way back he made it clear in all the discussions

Berserker, can you please contact me privately? Even via email if you need to. Thanks.

I probably won't be playing anymore but wanted to post this anyway because I thought there was good stuff for discussion and perhaps others might find it useful... I don't know. Anyway this is in reply to the cash shop stuff and whatnot...

The fact thats an online multiplayer game don't shocked me. But now i see what it is like.. there are only two things that can destroy the fun: 1) Cash shop (after you checked it's a pay2win game) and 2) waiting time (after you come only less frequent) --- All other things are not round yet, but at the actual stage i would say that it will be at later stages.

It doesn't surprise me either and I totally understand the need to do this. I remember the original discussions and how Enkord explained about the issue of piracy. Having sold products online myself I completely get how difficult and frustrating it is to try and earn money online where the majority of people are not willing to spend even a dollar - why bother when there's another site out there offering it for free? So yeah, I'm totally on board with the way the game is structured now. Having said that, Enkord themselves kept telling people they could play by themselves. I really think this has a lot to do with the initial confusion and bad descriptions by Berserker's statements (sorry, but you know what I'm referencing) and maybe I just imagined something different. I don't do multiplayer games ever. So I don't know how they work or what they're like. I think though, pointing to my above comment, that most people are like me and won't see "single player option" as "just ignore the chat box".

The rest of your comment is mostly off-topic but I wanted to reply anyway. Perhaps if it gets into a longer conversation we should move it to its own thread.

But back to the shop: There are two needs on the shop: a) You need fully access to all content without paying money and b) prices for items should be not to high, as it looks like a "greedy money-vampyr".

In this I agree with what Berserker has been saying: the shop items can be found at random throughout the game. You can complete the game without buying stuff. As for price point: I donated $20 USD and have received 2200 Enkord cash in exchange. I bought about 6 - 8 items with that cash, most of which were strategic purchases and were the more expensive ones. I have used almost all of them, but I discovered that I didn't need most of them because you also get them through advisor quests. I think the only one I was really glad I got was the Cornucopia, which is useful for initially building up your army in the early days of your town.

The other issue is waiting. You're too impatient. The whole idea for the game is so that Enkord can have long-time players, who play over months and years. The scale of that  idea (long-term playing) means that unlike TT1 or Gold you don't finish it in a few days. (And actually I prefer it this way) It's why you have to wait so long for things to upgrade and complete. It's not a game for quick play. It's designed to be something you come back to play again and again over time. The whole concept for the wheel of fortune is to give players incentive to come in each day.

When I think about it, this seems logical. A game you play for a few hours that's also free has little incentive for people to pay additional money on. It makes perfect sense for a short game to require payment because you have the immediate transaction, you play, and then you move on to your next entertainment. A short free game would be like Flash games: fun for a few minutes but mostly instantly forgettable. A long free game therefore has more chance of earning back the outlay simply by encouraging people to continue playing and by making things 'harder' for the player to achieve instantly. I don't see anything wrong with doing this so long as players are not constantly forced to pay up for extra content (which again, is not what Enkord's doing). I see this inline with many of the free apps out there (take, say, The Simpsons Tapped Out game) where you can play as long as you want and extra content is in no way "locked" - it's only the speed which is locked or extra fun items that are not necessary to the actual gameplay.

Having spent money in the shop may not actually mean you win first or have an advantage over everyone else. It depends on your playing strategy. I decided to expand and go for an alliance, and want to play peacefully: how does having a few shop items improve my situation in that regards? All I'd end up doing is waiting for everyone else to join my alliance.

The b) thing is ... everyone can have other feelings, but in my opinion the prices could all be lowered and that would make more people to pay. At the moment the most money is a "donation", most people done it to come very early into the alpha stage. Buy NOW more enkord cash? I'm one of the people who calculates in my currency and check: Am i willing to pay X€ for an item what give me Y effect? And then there will be only a few items where there come out a "TRUE" value. A fast example: I need three statues of enlightment for one level up: It will cost me 3$. Next level will me cost 4$ and so on ... would i want to pay it? Haha never. (To repeat myself: I believe that system will be revamped and you can get the statues through quests maybe. You don't need to buy everyone.. but if you do, you can be now level 17 or more)

I'm unemployed and on government benefits right now. I gave $20 because this is all I could afford, without feeling like a cheapskate for playing a game I'd been waiting 2 years for. I doubt I will make another donation or pay for items in the future, and if Enkord decides to make the game a subscription-based one I will have no choice to stop playing. I agree that there's a value issue to be calculated, but I also recognise that they're gambling their company and their employee's wages on the fact that players pay up. $3 for a virtual item seems like a lot until you remember that someone worked several months, or years, just to make the game work.

Basically: I agree there needs to be balance. I want to not pay too much for a game; I also want the people providing it to be able to pay their bills. 

I hope you don't mind me saying this but I find it surprising that you say you're a game designer. I can imagine that if I came up to you and said "make me a game for free that I can play forever with new updates of content" you'd probably try to avoid swearing or hitting me. It's reasonable to question the balance of the game and the way the features are structured, but a lot of what you're saying suggests that you have no patience for people who are offering a free game with paid perks that make sense given the need to squeeze money out of an audience that will likely do anything to avoid paying for their fun. Perhaps that's misrepresenting you and I apologise if it is.

As i'm myself in that target audience, and 7 other people i've shown (till now) that game, no one of these was happy to see a multiplayer online game with real time. I don't know whoever picked that target audience, but maybe i don't think of the same people as enkord think. I can only say what somebody said (which have played TT more often than myself, but doesn't know TTG.. about that he was very happy!): An online game? If i come back from work, i only have 1 or 2 hours time, i have kids, i have a wife, while i'm offline they do harlem shake with my city. I never will play it...

I agree with you, and I'm one of the people who spoke out about having to be connected all the time when playing. Since then I've changed slightly - only in the sense that I can see that if you're offline for long the whole thing grinds to a halt. After the initial few days of setting up, you can indeed leave the game for a day, check in and set some things up and then play longer on the weekend.

The only thing I can say in reply to this is that again I suspect it has more to do with "how to make money from our game" than "we are targetting adults with no time". In fact it makes perfect sense: adding to my thoughts above, those who play a free game only in short spurts will be frustrated (as you are) with the waiting and will have more incentive to buy a speed-up. I have no problem with Enkord trying to encourage people to pay them for their work and if it means I have to play a little slower that's fine.

I'd like to add that many a game I've bought has been utterly unplayable. These days you can't download demos, and any number of games that I wanted turned out to be: DRM and requiring some awful launcher I didn't want, something I loved the look of but struggle with the required dexterity, a game that looked gorgeous but ended up being unfinished (Kickstarter) and unplayable, a game that looked like my cup of tea but had so many cut scenes it was more like an animation than a game, etc. The point is that these games are all things I paid for and yet if I had had the chance to try them I would not have bought them at all. Even if they were playable, I'd finish them in a matter of days because they're so short. Very few have been worth the exorbitant prices - and those that were worth the money were too cheap for the value I got out of them.

At the end of the day, you have to exchange something. I can exchange money for a game I hope I like and play it for a little while until I finish it; or I can get a game for free and test it out with no obligations to continue playing it, and play it for far longer. In the former the game developers get their money back simply by selling their product; in the latter the game developers have to hope someone pays up. Micropayments are in my opinion a fair exchange for their product with no expectations that anyone will actually pay.

But i can say, as 4 of the 7 people not even know TTG... they are happy, but not about TT2. No one of my 'real friends' who played TT would like to play TT2. --- I think target audience should be more like school teens, which have half a day time. Everyone with private life cannot build so fast and will be sooner or later disappointed. Or they will use the hard earned money to use the "pay2win" concept. Maybe thats the reason why the aim is "adult".

Well yeah. Adults tend to have more free cash to spend on 'luxuries' than young teens at school. If you're planning on making money from something, you have to aim towards the people most likely to have the money to spend. If this were an educational game, they'd aim it at schools and teachers, not the kids who would actually play it.

Last words: All the things are only my opinion, and can be quite different from every gamer. It doesn't mean the game is bad or something like this. But i have some doubt if i really play that game till the end. I don't know any game which is perfect.. and thats why i say what i think. Enkord can use it or ignore it. But i can say: I've tried my best to make my point clear. It's good to know why people would leave a game.

I'm not sure I will play all the way through either. I'd like to, but I'd prefer the single player mode to the way it is currently. The main reasons though are financial and time. I don't like the idea that if I need to leave the game for a month due to illness or work or whatever, that my game will be destroyed. (Berserker: maybe that needs to be an option, even if it's a small payment, that you can choose so that your game wouldn't get deleted while you're away)

PS: If u think "Whats wrong with you?! *angry*" you can take your frustation and attack me ingame.. need something exciting there.

I don't think that. I think you're quite rightly expressing frustration with a financial gameplay model that you disagree with.

May I add that I agree fully with Buckwheats very eloquent thoughts here! 

Except I will be one of those long term players, I suspect. I have a different gaming history and preference than Buckwheat I suspect, and even though I may not at least as my first primary goal be very active in multiplayer "mode" I am used to the mechanics and understand the point of it from Enkord's point of view. That is simply a matter of personal taste though, milage may vary :-). 

For me the multiplayer aspect is not a deal breaker, but rather something that can be used for re-plays - going for other victory types after I've won Adventure. I'll want to replay anyway - finding new random quest locations, other resources, solving quests in different ways etc. 

@Buckwheat: I would really want to answer you with FULLY EXPLANATIONS.. but that can be a real big answer. I only want to go into detail for a few facts.

Things i don't go into detail (and many more):

- You say something like, you never would pay money, but 3$ for a virtual item is okay.

- I say "prices could be lowered to get more paying" you think that i say "paying is bad for the game!"

>>Having spent money in the shop may not actually mean you win first or have an advantage over everyone else. It depends on your playing strategy. I decided to expand and go for an alliance, and want to play peacefully: how does having a few shop items improve my situation in that regards? All I'd end up doing is waiting for everyone else to join my alliance.<<

--> To answer your question: It's not about "winning" or something, it's about if you are around someone uses the pay2win system too much, and then lower your own fun. If you would be attacked by someone and he is destroying your city faster than you can build it, than you get frustation. That can happen, if someone pays much and is 1 or 2 time stages above you. The "real goal" (one of the 6) is for everyone personally.. if you cheat in a game, everyone else can live with that, but if you disturb others, that can destroy harmony.

If you want to expand faster, you can sure use enkord cash wisely... sooner or later everyone prefer to join your alliance, if you are one of the top players.

And another thing - that's like "I say maybe" and you say "You said NEVER!"

>>I hope you don't mind me saying this but I find it surprising that you say you're a game designer. I can imagine that if I came up to you and said "make me a game for free that I can play forever with new updates of content" you'd probably try to avoid swearing or hitting me<<

and

>>I think you're quite rightly expressing frustration with a financial gameplay model that you disagree with.<<

As I said i'm a game designer, and all of my games uses shops. That i disagree with.. no way. It's a really nice system, to make people happy and earn money. My games are facebook games, and not so complex as TT2 is (a little more than the game is at the moment), but I need only a year to release a game with lesser worker than TT2 has, and my experience is: Lower price, higher buy rate (but not too low for sure). If only hardcore player (players which play every day at least 2-3 times) will buy something.. that can be nice, but if you have so nice prices that EVERY player thinks about it.. thats the best. Some numbers: Over 80% of all my players have bought something. There are items which costs only a 1$ and are buyed more than threads and posts are in the whole TT2 forum.

That the idea is not so wrong you can see in berserkers "news": They thinking about "more to get" for the money. Thats nice and should raise the numbers of payment actions in future. They don't need to make them free, but some percent off (and more balancing between "price" and "use") will come up with happy and willing to pay people.

You never want to spend something ... neither do I. But maybe - sometimes - i will be convinced to support the team again with 20$, as i really love the concept of the game. But only donate something... that i have done before i've played the game, know the game is half/half: Donation AND i want to get something for that. Maybe selfish..

(Not to forget, on topic text)

In fact a real singleplayer mode will never be in there.. but it will be better than that: It will be continuous updated with more and more content. That there are cons for that "design decision" is quite sure...

(The update from TT to TTG was really nice, more fun but less balancing ... that is something really important to me, it must be challenging, without to find something that is overpowered - mainly multiplayer games, singleplayer its less important)

- a few more content in the game (more random events in city, quests, and so on), then we can see what the game needs to be a multiplayer-singleplayer game :)

Arguments like "lowering the prices will result in more purchases and thus more profit" are very naive

I don't have said such a thing. Thats not only naive, it's incorrect.

There are two ways that seems to work: Make the payment much profitable, but not too cheap, so more players will buy. Or raise the prices to a level, where only a few players will pay, but if they pay, you get much money. (i.e. the own crests.. whoever pays 100.000Enkord cash for that, that will bring you much money, but i think not so much player will buy it. If it will be 50.000 Enkord cash, more player will buy that, but you need 2 buyings now, instead of only one buying before; 25.000 Enkord cash, and further more will pay, but you need 4 buyings.. and so on.)

But you are right with the fact, that you don't discuss that with player. Only you can see what best fits into your planning. You will definitly see the consequences of your choices later on ;-)

 I was away for awhile and unfortunately will be away for awhile soon.  One of my towns was sitting idle and unbeknownst to me, my hero was attacked and killed.  My polity is communal and I did not have enough time to get my defenses up before I had to leave on my trip.  When I went back last night I was consistently attacked by my neighbor whose borders are huge (I only had a chieftain hut of level 2).  I wasn't able to find my hero and with the help of the forum decided she probably was killed off by this neighbor.  So if I would have put a lot of time and money into this town, I would have lost everything because I was not at research level to add an altar that would have resurrected my hero.

I love TT1 and play it frequently, however, I agree with a few people on this thread that I thought it would be single player just like TT1.  I totally understand that the goals of the game are single player and I'm ok with that.  But I was not very happy to find that my neighbor was able to kill off my hero without me knowing about it and kept attacking me.  

If I was a new person and had a neighbor like my current neighbor who just wants to keep attacking me, I may just give up playing because there is a no win situation.

I too was under the impression originally that you could either choose to be part of a multi-player game or play a solo game.  I felt much of the angst expressed by Buckwheat but it was about the same time that the big changes were introduced to the times and resources. So, instead of stating my opinions straight away I heeded Berserker’s request that we reflect upon things for a few days.

I know he was primarily talking about the tweaking but 2 things collided for me.

I had decided to make a new hero and I was spending so much time playing with the game that I also created a hero for my husband so it could be something we did together. I do not like the aggressive style game but my husband went straight for that. He played Diablo for many years.

As it happened his hero and mine were placed next to each other and I spent a lot of time updating his town (he was at work). Then one of the neighbors started attacking him over and over. Like every half hour. This really upset me because it was not the type of thing I am interested in, but it is what he chose.

Then the next neighbor over started attacking him and he was having trouble gaining a foothold. Then the 2^nd neighbor attacked me. The attack on me caused me to write a whole of page of tirade about mixing peaceful and aggressive players and then I put it aside. 

Later I went back and looked at the attack report on my hero and realized that the attacker was worse off than me. He got so little that it would not even cover the ‘cost’ of reinstating the units he lost at my place. So, I doubted he would be back – just not profitable. At that point I wondered if he even knew what my polity was. I think it was Delraylady that asked if we could have a display of our polity to deter the attackers. She is my neighbor so I am guessing she had the same experience.

Also, when I created another new hero I saw something that I had forgotten about.  Our defensive ability is 300% greater.  I would like to see some kind of measure of my overall defense capability.

So, as I come to terms with the multi-player environment (I do like the chatter) I then wonder about the further implications. While I could protect myself at this point, what happens when this game has been up and running for some time and the ability to destroy buildings and take towns exists? 

If there is a warlord in the neighborhood would they eventually be able to overrun the peaceful ones?

How would a new player, of either polity, ever establish themselves if a warlord decided to hit them continually? The initial protection doesn’t last that long.

I have to state that my main interest in the game is the questing and I am still am not happy about being distracted by attackers at home. Although I am spending a lot time building up my realm that is only because that is all there is to do. This is not what the game will be like when it is up and running.

I feel that the next stage when we have the Classical Age will be very telling, because then we will have more to do than worry about how many cells we expand to. I know I personally got a tad obsessed at one point to expand so I could have some horses.

I am still not sure what the point of the aggressive game is but then they probably don’t understand us peaceful types either.