The official Rend servers are online. Please share your game feedback and bug reports with us!

Rend Developer Letter: Fall 2018

2»

Comments

  • @DaOgre

    On a slightly related topic of other gamemodes. Are there any plans to make the lost a more active threat in the game?

    Apart from the reckoning and some taming the lost are more or less a barely felt nemesis ,to the point that one can be forgiven if they forget that the lost even exist.

    Are there any plans for say minor incursions of lost? Something to keep people on their toes. After all there are naturally occurring rends in the veil dotting the landscape.. I am surprised that no lost wander into the world from these portals. I am also surpised that the lost don't try to attack outposts.

    Having lost hang out around rend portals would be a great way of introducing them in a minor way to people before any factions have a reckoning or dabble in the spirit world.

    Having lost attack outposts has a bunch of cool implications as well.

    For one thing it gives people a reason to actually defend and fortify them. Too often outposts are basically claim once and forget with the one exception being ninja caps at 3:00 am. Having lost attack them would break up the mundanity of defending an outpost against people that wont show up.

    Further more if lost attack outposts it would serve as a useful counter balance against dominant teams. No longer would it be about just capping as many outposts as a faction could but rather it would about how many outposts a faction can hold. If a faction over extends then the lost could punish this reckless play by taking back the outposts and leveling them to the ground for someone else to cap and fortify later.

    If we make the lost scale to the power level of the defending faction then we also have a great balancer. losing teams would have easier lost to fight.. when defending .. but more importantly losing teams would enjoy the help of powerful lost attacking the outposts of the dominant faction.

    This could finally give people a reason to contest outposts since at-least some aspect of the attackers should theoretically scale to the defenders

  • DarinthDarinth ✭✭✭
    @Swordphobic Anything that A: has collision, and B: is able to be freely placed probably *has* to be destroyable. Unfortunately, anything that isn't destroyable and can be placed instantly becomes a wall. Armor storage indestructible? Well then... line the base with them. Nobody will be able to penetrate the wall of armor stands.

    Now... I can see an argument made for things like the furnaces and other buildings that aren't able to be placed literally anywhere being indestructible... and to be quite blunt I think the game might benefit from it... As I've said in other threads, PvP in the "Survival PvP' genre tends to be predicated on the concept of griefing. People seem to actually get their kicks from being as destructive as possible, and there are some very vocal players who complain about anything that might result in them not being able to be as much of an asshole as possible.
  • No, what they are saying is that they are going to try and move some of the power away from the elder. Elders right now have alot of sway in terms of how things are built , who has access to what etc. they probably want to find a way to get that kind of power spread out more.

    This
  • DaOgre wrote: »
    No, what they are saying is that they are going to try and move some of the power away from the elder. Elders right now have alot of sway in terms of how things are built , who has access to what etc. they probably want to find a way to get that kind of power spread out more.

    This

    @DaOgre will we get an sale of Rend to get new players? Please tell me/us that Frostkeep realised that the player count is extremly low and decreasing every day. A Reduced price would be very helpfull.
  • edited October 2018
    Toranes wrote: »
    will we get an sale of Rend to get new players? Please tell me/us that Frostkeep realised that the player count is extremly low and decreasing every day. A Reduced price would be very helpfull.

    Our first focus is introducing the new features and gameplay improvements laid out in our Fall-Winter Early Access roadmap.
  • Darinth wrote: »
    @Swordphobic Anything that A: has collision, and B: is able to be freely placed probably *has* to be destroyable. Unfortunately, anything that isn't destroyable and can be placed instantly becomes a wall. Armor storage indestructible? Well then... line the base with them. Nobody will be able to penetrate the wall of armor stands.

    Now... I can see an argument made for things like the furnaces and other buildings that aren't able to be placed literally anywhere being indestructible... and to be quite blunt I think the game might benefit from it... As I've said in other threads, PvP in the "Survival PvP' genre tends to be predicated on the concept of griefing. People seem to actually get their kicks from being as destructive as possible, and there are some very vocal players who complain about anything that might result in them not being able to be as much of an asshole as possible.

    Sure, but personal stash, adventurer´s hut, construction hut, etc, all of those fixed/semi fixed structures offer no interesting gameplay by being destructable. And yeah, I understand some people get some joy from doing that, but judgements aside, its very short lived as the oposing players don´t need to stay and suffer griefing, you get an empty server that needs a ton of farm to be reset.
  • ToranesToranes
    edited October 2018
    Scapes wrote: »
    Toranes wrote: »
    will we get an sale of Rend to get new players? Please tell me/us that Frostkeep realised that the player count is extremly low and decreasing every day. A Reduced price would be very helpfull.

    Our first focus is introducing the new features and gameplay improvements laid out in our Fall-Winter Early Access roadmap.
    Scapes wrote: »
    Toranes wrote: »
    will we get an sale of Rend to get new players? Please tell me/us that Frostkeep realised that the player count is extremly low and decreasing every day. A Reduced price would be very helpfull.

    Our first focus is introducing the new features and gameplay improvements laid out in our Fall-Winter Early Access roadmap.

    You guys should take a look on other failed Early Access games on steam which chose the same way. To patch the game over months and let the player count decreasing so much is the death of an early access game. Do you guys really think there will be a huge increase of players in 1 or 2 months if the game is in a little bit better state? The player count will be under 100 in 1-2 months. If you dont reduce the price now you wont have success with Rend. The potential buyers will take a look of the player count and if they see that extremly low players they wont buy rend.... its very simple. I absoutely cant understand why you guys not learned from all the other failed early access games. I understand your point but if you ignore the player count problem, rend will absolutely no one care in 1-2 months even if it got good patches.

    Every single following game take the same way " updates before try to increase the extremly low player count" every single one failed.

    Gloria victis, savage lands, miscreated, valnirrok, steamhammer, novus inceptio and much more.


    Good luck to your company Scapes.....

  • DarinthDarinth ✭✭✭
    Toranes wrote: »
    Do you guys really think there will be a huge increase of players in 1 or 2 months if the game is in a little bit better state?

    No, I dont think that's what they're banking on. That sounds a bit ludicrous. I think that they're banking on the principle that in 3-4 months the game will be in a great state that can hit a mass-market appeal. If that's the case, it'll see a slow increase in players, start to get better reviews, and recover. Once the game is in a great state, looking at a sale to boost the reviews up and increase player counts might be more viable. But right now a sale is simply going to be a repeat of the same thing we saw when Rend started into EA. Player counts will spike up... and then just return to lower player counts.

    You listed a bunch of survival games and say that they're all making the same mistake as Rend... but interestingly enough they're all priced lower than Rend. Most of them by a fair margin, a few of them by an insane margin. Doesn't seem to have helped them. As I've previously said... I currently own Rend. It's free for me to play at this point, but I'm not willing to do so. The gameplay isn't engaging enough to me. I want to see that fixed. Right now, I feel like Rend has the potential to exceed the standards of the genre (though I'll be honest, those standards are pretty low IMHO; there are only a handful of survival games that I can say I truly enjoyed, There's been nothing that is specifically survival PvP that I enjoyed.) Until Rend has gameplay that a larger audience feels is worth the time to play, there's no point in a sale or a price reduction. :( Be patient, a sale is not in the game's best interests right now.
  • ToranesToranes
    edited October 2018
    Darinth wrote: »
    Toranes wrote: »
    Do you guys really think there will be a huge increase of players in 1 or 2 months if the game is in a little bit better state?

    No, I dont think that's what they're banking on. That sounds a bit ludicrous. I think that they're banking on the principle that in 3-4 months the game will be in a great state that can hit a mass-market appeal. If that's the case, it'll see a slow increase in players, start to get better reviews, and recover. Once the game is in a great state, looking at a sale to boost the reviews up and increase player counts might be more viable. But right now a sale is simply going to be a repeat of the same thing we saw when Rend started into EA. Player counts will spike up... and then just return to lower player counts.

    You listed a bunch of survival games and say that they're all making the same mistake as Rend... but interestingly enough they're all priced lower than Rend. Most of them by a fair margin, a few of them by an insane margin. Doesn't seem to have helped them. As I've previously said... I currently own Rend. It's free for me to play at this point, but I'm not willing to do so. The gameplay isn't engaging enough to me. I want to see that fixed. Right now, I feel like Rend has the potential to exceed the standards of the genre (though I'll be honest, those standards are pretty low IMHO; there are only a handful of survival games that I can say I truly enjoyed, There's been nothing that is specifically survival PvP that I enjoyed.) Until Rend has gameplay that a larger audience feels is worth the time to play, there's no point in a sale or a price reduction. :( Be patient, a sale is not in the game's best interests right now.


    In 3-4 month a slow increase in players? Lol dude. That never happend in the last years in any EA game. The player count will never be slowly increase without any sale/reduced price. Rend is now in much better state as in the EA start.

    Yes simply because all these listed games tryed it like Rend. First a few months of patching and thinking like this" yeah we will get an boom of players if we released patch xx". Then they realised that the player count cant increase cause there are just 30 player left after 5 months so they started to get a few player with a sale. After this they have not enough money to fisnish the product= one more unfinished dead early access game with some potential( Rend has much much more potential than the very most other EA games).

    A Sale/reduced price now would be the last chance for Rend. It would increase the player count rapidly and for sure the players who already have the game could test out the updates of the last weeks. Me for example want to test the updates but with this constant decreasing player count and not a single full server it makes simply no sense to go back to rend. And thats the point all the players which already have the game wont come back if they cant find a full or nearly full server to test the game correctly.
  • SaltychipmunkSaltychipmunk ✭✭✭
    edited October 2018
    You looked at conan exiles recently? During EA it was considered a disaster so much so that everyone stopped playing it. Then it became funcom's fastest selling game in the company history once it launched out of EA.

  • ToranesToranes
    edited October 2018
    You looked at conan exiles recently? During EA it was considered a disaster so much so that everyone stopped playing it. Then it became funcom's fastest selling game in the company history once it launched out of EA.

    Yes i played conan exiles. conan exiles is still extremly buggy and in PvP not playable. The early access time had always enough players. It never dropped below 1600. So there is a huge difference between rend and conan exiles. Conan exiles got players back cause they started a massiv martketing campaign and made multiple sales even in early acess.

    The only talent which funcom have is good marketing.

    But look at the player count. The game is full with bugs and PvP is not working cause of massive balancing problems and bugs. But there are still thousands of PvE players. Thats what i mean. You can sold the shittiest game ever if your marketing and the price is good.
  • Funcom kind of proved that marketing as a skill is an extremely useful tool to have no?
Sign In or Register to comment.