The Castle Doctrine Forums

Well, I'm actually sort of glad my two recent deaths, one from Internet failure, and my second in a hail-mary robbery to salvage my winning chances backed up only be a decent, if mostly wooden, house, have freed me from having to worry about the contest too much, as I know I have no chance with a packed Monday schedule. I wouldn't be able to get the club anyways, as a resident of the great state of California, but I'm pretty bummed about the painting. I hope Jason tells us where he's getting them from so I can buy my own... or try my Castle Doctrine robbing skills at one of the winner's IRL houses.

It was just a joke; I understand that things have to be dome that, in some cases seem rather harsh, to prevent widespread cheating by simply unplugging your router mid-robbery. And I agree, I rarely "rage-quit" for more than an hour; but my cats realize that something bad has happened due to shouts of anger and a keyboard hitting the wall (just a bit of an exaggeration there).

As I said in my similar thread lamenting my own house's loss to a "Web Request Failed" error, it seems like that recovery is only fair, because of the contest. I feel like I lost all of my chances at winning to bad luck. I might just buy a painting myself, like you suggested.

Any more spots available? I'd love to help out. I can also test on the SteamOS beta distro, if needed.

I actually really support the suggestion of smaller houses, and your point about it making traps more clever is a good one. it would mean that people would have to use their house space wisely, and it would prevent many arbitrarily difficult houses that are far too common.

As Deth said, you're fully entitled to your opinion. However, as one of the fans of the game, I have to say I love some of the very things you hate. For example, permadeath is what, in my opinion, makes the game good. Without permadeath, the game would have so little tension - especially in you own house! Also, all the difficulties you go through to succeed in this game makes the success so much sweeter. It's the best feeling to rob a top house with just some water, a brick, and your wits, or to see some sap change into your trap just as you planned he would.

This game, though, isn't for everyone. Think of it like Payday, plus Minecraft, with a little bit of Slender too; but all, of course, way harder. I'll admit its a niche game, but for those of us who love it, it's really the be-all and end-all of online gaming. We do appreciate your criticism, as somebody who isn't as big of a fan, but some things that you might dislike about the game are here to stay.

I haven't had a problem with high timers so far; they seem pretty good when the population is high. It's really nice to see a long house list now; I'm so glad the game has been thriving! I would like to note, though, that alt accounts are now even more powerful, allowing one (or more!) alt account to suicidally scout, and take the massive chill penalty, and the main account to rob successfully after those suicidal scouting trips, something nobody can afford to do normally anymore.

I think that the pricing model here is actually pretty sound; it allows players to choose between three things:
A. Buy the game for cheaper, but with less knowledge about what it really is, a smaller community, and frequent changes; or
B. Buy the game for a higher price, after there is an established community and knowledge about what the game is.
C. Not buy the game at all.

I can't be perfectly unbiased here, as a player who's bought the game for the cheaper price, but I have to say that this seems like a good set of decisions. Those who are willing to try the game early get rewarded, not screwed by an upcoming sale that they didn't see. Those who wait instead have to pay more for their decision to wait. This encourages a large player base of enthusiastic players early on (those who bought at the cheaper price), thus encouraging the later group to want to buy the game more. This is a big factor in online games, and one that many people here aren't acknowledging; having that player base of fans is really important to success.

Think about it like this: fans who choose option A above will buy the game no matter what. However, under this model, they are encouraged to buy it early, knowing that they would buy no matter what. This, in turn, makes option B more appealing to those who are choosing between B and C. Thus, during the Steam release, this B-C group will see not an empty, imperfect, just-begginning game like we did way back in v5. Instead, they see a thriving community, where they want to play. They too then purchase the game, making the community even larger, and encouraging even those who may not have bought the game on its Steam release to do so later. This eventually reaches a maximum; but it's a maximum much higher than what could be reached with a "repeated sales" model.

I really think that this is a good pricing model for an online game like this one. With the ability to buy lifetime server access to a great community for a fixed price, sales really don't make sense. And really, I love the game, and all I want is the community to grow and thrive. And Jason's model, I believe, is the right way to do it.

Really, a server wipe is only fair. I haven't played for a while, and having to start with a fresh $2000 while others have hundreds of thousands of dollars is absolutely ridiculous.

I feel like that the house in TCD is supposed to be more of a means for gameplay and not a realistic home. However, I think that some ideas here are actually quite good, especially that of a "welcoming environment". It would make the game feel more tense; if you walked into a seemingly innocuous room, but suddenly the doors locked and pit bulls poured in from the walls, that would be really cool. Despite this, I've seen something like that done in houses already (a room that seems like the way to the vault, but locks you in and kills you), and I feel that making changes like the ones proposed wouldn't change the incentives from simply building what people are building now.

Agreed. This would be a nice feature to have.