So yet another unannounced change.

Their wording on the update was fairly vague. And based on how they had previously stated, that all housing plots would be available for in game gold, myself, and seeming a few other people based on responses on this thread. Took the wording in the update, along with the previous information that all plots would be available for in game gold as meaning, that for real life money, you wont not be able to get the castle lot, with the exception of pledging to LotM.

They then presented the new Duke, 'keep' lost June 4th, so over a month ago now, and no mention of the exclusivity of the reward, to pledge only. This is confirmed with the update that was presented including the information about the duke keep lot, Update#80. And just for reference, in case they decide to go and change the update to include this 'new' restriction, which they have already done in other cases, and made edits that hide the original information.

However, based on the new wording added to the pledge today, "(This lot size only available through pledge purchase; not available in Add-On Store nor in-game)" they have, after 4 months, decided that they didn't word it correctly, and that they would 'fix' the issue without so much as a word. They provided vague information, that could be taken in a multitude of different ways (shown by the various interpretations of the plot availability in this thread alone) and instead of making any formal thread regarding the matter, or to try and address any potential concerns about the issue, they make a change to their wording, and the only 'official' word, has been in the form, of a PM, to a relatively new community member, by Darkstarr.

 

Are you serious? Really, that was serious question, given the wording:
To that end we have created Castle Lots, a fourth lot size that is only available to Lords of the Manor.

What part of "only available to Lords of the Manor" was vague?

You're referring to "previous information" and "previously stated" -- sure, those are all things said prior to the reveal of the Castle lot. And it was explicitly clear -- not vague -- that the Castle lot would not be made available except through pledging. So which is it then? A misunderstanding due to poor communication or an unannounced change in policy as your OP originally claimed?

Ok, so lack of information is a change in perceived policy?

Really, I'm not defending nor condoning, as the devs can speak for themselves. I'm just trying to understand how this came about so that future communication is more crisp. I mean, looking at even the wording of the add-on store, stating that lots purchased on the add-on store are taxed, with no mention about lots purchased in-game being taxed. Even the FAQ doesn't specify this. So if they later clarify that yes, lots purchased in-game later will have a tax, will that be a change in policy?

 

The updates called it the Duke's Keep Lot and the LotM Castle Lot and referenced them as being created specifically to reward the people of those pledges.

They said that lots would be available for purchase in-game. That has not changed. The creation of additional lots specifically as backer rewards doesn't negate their previous statements that referred to V/T/C.

 

Personally, "vague" is not the word I would have used.

Mind you though, since I missed that nuance when initially reading the Update, I would perhaps say it was a tad "understated".

The wording could have been a bit more obvious: Perhaps in BIG bold letters or whatnot.

Could have saved themselves the hurt of some unintended expectations.

 

And an understated phrase has spawned 8 pages of analysis and debate.

 

It even was in big bold letters, right there in the heading of the announcement. Them adding the statement about it being available only to LotM was actually redundant, given the name of the lot itself.

Lord of the Manor Castle Lot

 

Nope, still missed it.

I do stand corrected now though. And shall ensure to note that in any future answers I make in that regards.

 

The Sky of Andoris is blue!

 

LOL

I was actually thinking the *exact* same thing earlier.

This is just DarkStarr's way of whipping up a longer thread than Stephen.

 

Yes, vague.

They has previously stated ALL housing plots were going to be available for in game gold, but the TAX FREE variants would only be available at certain pledge levels. To this end, one could interpenetrate the wording you so adamantly claim is clear and hard proof, that their intention was to never offer this to anyone but LotM, in various different ways. Which is something Portalarium obviously realised today, when they made the change to the pledge wording, that this information could be taken in different ways. If not, why bother to make the change at all?

And yes, I am refering to 'previous statements' that had been made on several occasion, stating that all plots would be made available for in game gold, as taking some what more precedence then a single open ended statement made in ONE place.

And no a lack of information is not the case here. Its the fact, that after months of information being available to the community, they decide to make an amendment, with no notice, or information as to why they made that change. Much like the change they made to the developer rewards, when they initially just changed the wording on a reward completely, until this was pointed out to them and deemed unacceptable by the community.


And it may not have been then intent, but I find the fact that both yourself, and Dame Lori have attempted to turn this into what seems to be a joke, at my expense, very offensive, and just more evidence of the already prevalent elitism that has taken over this community. And that anyone who raises any form of a valid concern, which numerous people have stated that they agree, it is a concern, is simply branded as a trouble maker, and that their opinion is nothing more then someone who didn't get what they want.

 

Quite the contrary, Korvash. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against you. I just happen to work in a field where root cause analysis is what I do professionally, and that was what I was simply attempting to do: to understand how this came about so that we all can learn from it.

So where do we go from here? We know that there are communication issues and that has been a pattern. It is a problem that the wording we're arguing over is only available in an Update and not on the pledge tier itself or clarified on the add-on store or in the FAQ. It is a problem that a lot of clarifying statements are only done in PM and never reiterated publicly. And really though, I have no problems with criticisms against the team as long as they're constructive, and my questioning above was more for my understanding of how this came about and was not in defense of anyone or anything. It was really in my misunderstanding of how you (and likely others) arrived at your own interpretation that I asked for clarification.

 

Korvash,

Just an observation... but you kind of made this "seem to be a joke" with your OP.

I understand your points... I really do. But, just as I earlier found a certain starr player's apparent sarcasm that backers expected Portalarium to deliver on its promises a little... disingenuous... I find the idea that anyone thinks people are going to drop upwards of $5000 (or even worse, $10000) on a game that may. never. happen. without the prospect of receiving some serious in-game considerations that NO ONE ELSE will be able to realize within the constructs of said game when it is a reality to be a little self-deceiving.

I think part of this is focusing on the trees... and failing to see what may lie beyond because the mere sight of those trees so deeply offends.

 

a couple more cents:

A pledge to ask for community input is not a mandate to seek it in every situation.

 

I agree

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

No, but they constantly claim, openness and transparency, something that is clearly not being done here.

 

I said nothing about you being a trouble-maker. You did make an outright untrue statement to open your argument, and you decided to not correct it, despite knowing it is untrue. That is not a joke. I do not see how pointing out that the Duke and LotM lots were very clearly marked as Duke and LotM lots is a joke, either, or how that involves "elitism." I am not close to being at those pledge levels. Is pointing out that Port just may actually not be at fault here the new definition of elitism?

 

But its all ok because they say "Don't lawyer me" whenever they do it and ban you if you point out there inconsistencies

 

I think they are doing the best they can do thier not perfect and have made some misteaks. All in all I have faith its gonna come togther some of the stuff thier doing is great. All the videos the fourm posts those things are worth something ive never seen a game do as much as they have done to communicate.

 

Kind of not seeing how it wasn't transparent? Did they not publish an update or make a post stating this happened?

Are you expecting them to have a freaking terrarium type of set up, kind of like an modern, isometric Little Computer People Project?

They are a company, man... there is no conceivable way they can be as transparent as you are apparently expecting them to be... that is just a fact of life. There will be decisions that they are going to make, and they are NOT going to ask our PERMISSION or seek out our input, and regardless of their stated aim of transparency, it is almost ludicrous to expect them to do so.

Am I saying NOT to call them out if you perceive them taking a left turn at Albuquerque? Not at all... but by your own admission, you sensationalized it because you believe that it will not receive the attention you think it deserves any other way, so don't be surprised when people react in the way you seem to have come to expect them to.

 

/gkick ?