Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

1356710

Comments

  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,814
    edited December 2016
    Albatroes said:
    I think whether or not you consider Chronicles of Elyria pay-to-win depends on what your own personal goals are in the game as well as one's own definition of the term "pay-to-win".  And I see merit on both sides of the argument in this thread.  

    For myself, I find the idea of starting a game where the Varion Wrynn's of the world are actual players instead of boring, scripted NPCs to be exciting.  It's not something I've experienced before and I look forward to seeing what that's like.  Now, I don't myself desire to be a King or any other territorial ruler so from my perspective it's not a pay-to-win scenario.  But I don't discount those who feel that it is.  If being King would be your goal then the inequity of other's paying real money to start there when you can only afford to start as a peasant yourself ... I can see how that would be off-putting.  However, don't you think it would mean so much more if you were to rise from being a peasant to being King all on your own?  That sounds like it could be a fantastic journey!
    The problem with the 'goal' logic is that people's goals eventually change as they play. When (not if) that happens, you're only left with 3 options: pay up, quit, suck up and change your mind back to the previous.
    Well, not really; at least not in Chronicles of Elyria.  You can't "pay up" post-launch to become a King.  That option is only on the table before the story begins, which is why I don't have a problem with it.  But I understand why some wouldn't like it.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • psychosiz1psychosiz1 Member UncommonPosts: 76
    This is a funny thread.  One person trying to convince the masses pretty much.  Too many valid points about pw2 to think otherwise.
  • NildenNilden Canada, NBMember RarePosts: 2,165
    This is a funny thread.  One person trying to convince the masses pretty much.  Too many valid points about pw2 to think otherwise.
    I've seen this thread so many times. <insert game> is not pay 2 win, when really it is blatantly obvious they just want to try and justify the spending.

    If someone makes a thread saying a game isn't pay 2 win you can bet it is.


    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer


  • IsilithTehrothIsilithTehroth Unknown, AZMember UncommonPosts: 361
    I really hate the reasoning developers and fanbois try to use to defend blatant P2W schemes. Just because you can loot an item and territory doesn't excuse it from people buying things to win. 

    MurderHerd

  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 143
    simon155 said:
    *The same thing more times than anyone cares to read in a poor attempt to convince, someone, something*
    The game is P2W and will fail. 

    You don't have the ability to learn which is probably why you keep trying very hard to convince yourself the game is not P2W when it clearly is. Sad.

    What is your reasoning behind creating an mmorpgcom account only to post 50+ on the topic of this horrible game? It's almost like you're the guy who paid 40k to have an advantage over the few people who will play the game for a month. That, or a dev who is really butthurt their game is getting nothing but negative reviews.

    Either way, save yourself a lot of time and effort and just stop supporting this game, you've done enough and have only made everyone's thoughts on the game worse. 
  • YaevinduskYaevindusk Ul''dah, CAMember RarePosts: 1,918
    I'd rather them have a writing contest or something to prove the merit of someone that would have such potential world-changing ramifications within the story / lore.  Or hire someone / put the writing staff in those roles so that they can role play it until such a time a group of people / guild rises up and usurps it through cunning game play and the like.

    Having a King or a Villain that could potentially be the biggest troll does not make for a good ruler or villain.  Role playing a villain is an artform and it's so easy to abuse or get wrong.  Even most RPGs in single player do it in such a way as to trivialize the story or make the villain in question look like a doofus.  Not to mention that trying to portray one where there are many characters controlled by other people has many responsibilities tied to it.  It isn't about *your fun* or *you* anymore when you take up an important role.  That character now belongs to the community and it's your job to further the story of not only the world, but every player's character around you and hope they get enjoyment from your "DMing".  It's now about their story when you take up a community role.






  • MikePaladinMikePaladin NewYork, NYMember UncommonPosts: 592
    Sad to see these people so desperate for justice and equality mean while this same people support Capitalism that exploits workers to fullest even in First world not mentioning Second and Third world.

    I don't care I just want to enjoy the game and I will despite what anyone here says about P2W ...I'll just say Grow Up and prioritize Important things from minor insignificant crap...

    If P2W will as bad as it sound the game will just die and I give 0 shit despite huge desire to see it became true ...but if not well so be it.... not like it matter to me that much.
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    Sad to see these people so desperate for justice and equality mean while this same people support Capitalism that exploits workers to fullest even in First world not mentioning Second and Third world.

    I don't care I just want to enjoy the game and I will despite what anyone here says about P2W ...I'll just say Grow Up and prioritize Important things from minor insignificant crap...

    If P2W will as bad as it sound the game will just die and I give 0 shit despite huge desire to see it became true ...but if not well so be it.... not like it matter to me that much.
    As always you tell people to focus on politics and problems in the world and to ignore the problems of a game... on a gaming forum.

    You are the one who needs to grow up.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko JohannesburgMember EpicPosts: 6,542
    I'm not too concerned about the P2W aspects of CoE, because I don't believe the game will ever reach "launch" status with even half the complexity and features that it's supposed to have. If it ever reaches launch in the first place...

    A few people will undoubtedly spend loads of money on this game before it sinks without a trace, but that's business as usual.
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.
    Nilden
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 2,448
    edited December 2016
    Kyleran said:
    There is a definite advantage to having a head start.

    I know several organizations (because calling them guilds or clans is a misnomer) which will take full advantage and crush all in their path, with extreme efficiency.
    This.

    You're saying it's not P2W because they're planning, in the future, to remove the P2W features.


    Analogy: Iran plans to dismantle their nuclear program in the future.  Erego, they currently do not have a nuclear program.

    It's P2W right now.  If they remove those features at launch, it may no longer qualify as an MMORPG centered around P2W features, but the effects from the feature before release are still there and it will still be an MMORPG that supported P2W prior to launch.  In a game focused around territory/resource control and player building (from the general info I've read and gleaned about the title), then paying to be granted land and titles is pretty straightforward P2W so long as those features remain part of the game or its development.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,748
    Iselin said:
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.

    Honestly, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. People want to believe it matters, but it doesn't. If you've ever played a game without tiers, you'd probably realize it. Unless you've had a bunch of World Firsts, then that's my bad for making that assumption. However, for 99% of people it simply doesn't matter. You will never be the unicorn, you won't be the beautiful and unique snowflake, it just isn't happening. The closest I got was watching a former guild member back in WotLK get a server first. I was just arriving in Borean Tundra when he did it (oh! and I pre-ordered and picked up the game at midnight). 

    Truthfully, the best way to structure a PvP game is to make a quick start irrelevant. Fact is that if time equals power then it's a fucking gong show. 3 weeks might as well be 30 years because you'll never catch them. There needs to be better mechanics for balance, and it's likely that they will exist. Unfortunately, people seem to get their titties in a twist about these things before anything is ever even released. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    edited December 2016
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.

    Honestly, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. People want to believe it matters, but it doesn't. If you've ever played a game without tiers, you'd probably realize it. Unless you've had a bunch of World Firsts, then that's my bad for making that assumption. However, for 99% of people it simply doesn't matter. You will never be the unicorn, you won't be the beautiful and unique snowflake, it just isn't happening. The closest I got was watching a former guild member back in WotLK get a server first. I was just arriving in Borean Tundra when he did it (oh! and I pre-ordered and picked up the game at midnight). 

    Truthfully, the best way to structure a PvP game is to make a quick start irrelevant. Fact is that if time equals power then it's a fucking gong show. 3 weeks might as well be 30 years because you'll never catch them. There needs to be better mechanics for balance, and it's likely that they will exist. Unfortunately, people seem to get their titties in a twist about these things before anything is ever even released. 
    It's the principle of the thing that causes all the angst and forum fights. Whether you're one of 0.1% or one of the 99.9%, we all want to start a game with no less than anyone else.

    It's the other part of that, the "no more" part, where things fall apart and where there is easy money to be made because a lot of people apparently do want to start with more evidenced by all the collectors editions, guaranteed beta spots where you can learn the ins and outs before others, earlier head starts so you can be higher level faster than others, etc., that competitive PVP games have been selling for years.

    Kickstarted games have just taken that idea and run with it expanding the crap out of it in the process. And many are willing to pay for it years in advance of there actually being something to play.

    It just does damage to the fundamental purpose of competitive gaming which is that we all start the same. It's no different than why people always get pissed off in PVP and cry out for nerfs whenever a group (typically a class) is perceived to have an upper hand: we do want as even a playing field as possible above all else in our competitive games.

    People just seem to park the part of their gaming brain that wants that when they buy into the whole institutionalized privilege thing that is now always for sale. 


    Post edited by Iselin on
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,748
    edited December 2016
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.

    Honestly, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. People want to believe it matters, but it doesn't. If you've ever played a game without tiers, you'd probably realize it. Unless you've had a bunch of World Firsts, then that's my bad for making that assumption. However, for 99% of people it simply doesn't matter. You will never be the unicorn, you won't be the beautiful and unique snowflake, it just isn't happening. The closest I got was watching a former guild member back in WotLK get a server first. I was just arriving in Borean Tundra when he did it (oh! and I pre-ordered and picked up the game at midnight). 

    Truthfully, the best way to structure a PvP game is to make a quick start irrelevant. Fact is that if time equals power then it's a fucking gong show. 3 weeks might as well be 30 years because you'll never catch them. There needs to be better mechanics for balance, and it's likely that they will exist. Unfortunately, people seem to get their titties in a twist about these things before anything is ever even released. 
    It's the principle of the thing that causes all the angst and forum fights. Whether you're one of 0.1% or one of the 99.9%, we all want to start a game with no less than anyone else.

    It's the other part of that, the "no more" part, where things fall apart and where there is easy money to be made because a lot of people apparently do want to start with more evidenced by all the collectors editions, guaranteed beta spots where you can learn the ins and outs before others, earlier head starts so you can be higher level faster than others, etc., that competitive PVP games have been selling for years.

    Kickstarted games have just taken that idea and run with it expanding the crap out of it in the process. And many are willing to pay for it years in advance of there actually being something to play.

    It just does damage to the fundamental purpose of competitive gaming which is that we all start the same. It's no different than why people always get pissed off in PVP and cry out for nerfs whenever a group (typically a class) is perceived to have an upper hand: we do want as even a playing field as possible above all else in our competitive games.

    People just seem to park the part of their gaming brain that wants that when they buy into the whole institutionalized privilege thing that is now always for sale. 



    Yes, exactly, they make changes when it impacts competitive gaming. I would agree with you that if these purchased advantages affected the competitive gaming aspects, then I would agree. However, they really don't. In the case of CoE, with my limited knowledge, instead of it being a race (of which you would not win), lasting all of 24 hours or less, they decided to sell that position. So if you buy into the game a week following release (time enough for the game to get some reviews in), it's likely that there will have been zero difference (sold or earned) in the game and standing of people in it. 

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's a Tier system and has been since the start, right? I can appreciate that you happen to dislike games that do this, but you're acting like this is something that is game breaking, when it isn't. In fact, it really isn't likely to impact anything as far as how the events would play out in the actual game. Also, it's not a competitive game, as far as I know. If you're looking for something with level playing fields, then I'd suggest something like Counterstrike. I mean there is just very little out there where advantages and the continuous balance of power aren't something that changes on a daily or weekly basis. 

    It, literally, damages nothing. This is not a game that will be featured on MLG. This is a game which will launch, run for a year, then fizzle out and be left with a community of a few (maybe ten) thousand people supporting a shell of a game. Oh! And that's not because of their model or their tiers, or anything else, it's just how it is. 
    Post edited by CrazKanuk on

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • DrDread74DrDread74 Las Vegas, NVMember UncommonPosts: 301
    If I can continually pay for temporary advantage, that's Pay To Win.

    Honestly I think games like this would work better if there were a certain number of King, prince, count positions available and anyone who wanted those higher positions would auction to get into them with real money against other players with real money, then auction every month with real money to keep them. Everyone else plays free. No other pay into advantages. Essentially everyone IS the same except for the government positions which don't make your character anymore skilled or powerful just put you in a different type of game.

    Being in a monarchy position makes your game a little different but you still don't have "Awesome items" etc. You are stuck governing the kingdom, province you paid for. You can go free and leave your position anytime and go adventure more, and if you want a taste of being a king, you can pay through an auction to become King or a count  for a month in some small kingdom.






    http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/
     An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.

    Honestly, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. People want to believe it matters, but it doesn't. If you've ever played a game without tiers, you'd probably realize it. Unless you've had a bunch of World Firsts, then that's my bad for making that assumption. However, for 99% of people it simply doesn't matter. You will never be the unicorn, you won't be the beautiful and unique snowflake, it just isn't happening. The closest I got was watching a former guild member back in WotLK get a server first. I was just arriving in Borean Tundra when he did it (oh! and I pre-ordered and picked up the game at midnight). 

    Truthfully, the best way to structure a PvP game is to make a quick start irrelevant. Fact is that if time equals power then it's a fucking gong show. 3 weeks might as well be 30 years because you'll never catch them. There needs to be better mechanics for balance, and it's likely that they will exist. Unfortunately, people seem to get their titties in a twist about these things before anything is ever even released. 
    It's the principle of the thing that causes all the angst and forum fights. Whether you're one of 0.1% or one of the 99.9%, we all want to start a game with no less than anyone else.

    It's the other part of that, the "no more" part, where things fall apart and where there is easy money to be made because a lot of people apparently do want to start with more evidenced by all the collectors editions, guaranteed beta spots where you can learn the ins and outs before others, earlier head starts so you can be higher level faster than others, etc., that competitive PVP games have been selling for years.

    Kickstarted games have just taken that idea and run with it expanding the crap out of it in the process. And many are willing to pay for it years in advance of there actually being something to play.

    It just does damage to the fundamental purpose of competitive gaming which is that we all start the same. It's no different than why people always get pissed off in PVP and cry out for nerfs whenever a group (typically a class) is perceived to have an upper hand: we do want as even a playing field as possible above all else in our competitive games.

    People just seem to park the part of their gaming brain that wants that when they buy into the whole institutionalized privilege thing that is now always for sale. 



    Yes, exactly, they make changes when it impacts competitive gaming. I would agree with you that if these purchased advantages affected the competitive gaming aspects, then I would agree. However, they really don't. In the case of CoE, with my limited knowledge, instead of it being a race (of which you would not win), lasting all of 24 hours or less, they decided to sell that position. So if you buy into the game a week following release (time enough for the game to get some reviews in), it's likely that there will have been zero difference (sold or earned) in the game and standing of people in it. 

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's a Tier system and has been since the start, right? I can appreciate that you happen to dislike games that do this, but you're acting like this is something that is game breaking, when it isn't. In fact, it really isn't likely to impact anything as far as how the events would play out in the actual game. Also, it's not a competitive game, as far as I know. If you're looking for something with level playing fields, then I'd suggest something like Counterstrike. I mean there is just very little out there where advantages and the continuous balance of power aren't something that changes on a daily or weekly basis. 

    It, literally, damages nothing. This is not a game that will be featured on MLG. This is a game which will launch, run for a year, then fizzle out and be left with a community of a few (maybe ten) thousand people supporting a shell of a game. Oh! And that's not because of their model or their tiers, or anything else, it's just how it is. 
    I've often read the same in the Star Citizen forums... speaking of rationalizing away the advantages and making them seem inconsequential. It's a crowdfunded game cliche. You can find the same thing said almost exactly as you've said it in all of their forums.
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,748
    edited December 2016
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:

    Yes, exactly, they make changes when it impacts competitive gaming. I would agree with you that if these purchased advantages affected the competitive gaming aspects, then I would agree. However, they really don't. In the case of CoE, with my limited knowledge, instead of it being a race (of which you would not win), lasting all of 24 hours or less, they decided to sell that position. So if you buy into the game a week following release (time enough for the game to get some reviews in), it's likely that there will have been zero difference (sold or earned) in the game and standing of people in it. 

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's a Tier system and has been since the start, right? I can appreciate that you happen to dislike games that do this, but you're acting like this is something that is game breaking, when it isn't. In fact, it really isn't likely to impact anything as far as how the events would play out in the actual game. Also, it's not a competitive game, as far as I know. If you're looking for something with level playing fields, then I'd suggest something like Counterstrike. I mean there is just very little out there where advantages and the continuous balance of power aren't something that changes on a daily or weekly basis. 

    It, literally, damages nothing. This is not a game that will be featured on MLG. This is a game which will launch, run for a year, then fizzle out and be left with a community of a few (maybe ten) thousand people supporting a shell of a game. Oh! And that's not because of their model or their tiers, or anything else, it's just how it is. 
    I've often read the same in the Star Citizen forums... speaking of rationalizing away the advantages and making them seem inconsequential. It's a crowdfunded game cliche. You can find the same thing said almost exactly as you've said it in all of their forums.

    And I hear the same cliche argument coming from people who want some sort of safe and sound starting point. Why don't you tell me about your experiences with these types of games and how they have led to unfair advantages which negatively impacted your ability to play? I can honestly say I've played plenty, and I've even backed SC at a whopping $20, and I have never felt disadvantaged. This is simply a cognitive bias that leads you to believe that you're somehow being held back. Please, though, tell me I'm wrong. How many world and server firsts have you had in so-called "fair" games? 
    Post edited by CrazKanuk on

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • ScotScot UKMember RarePosts: 6,435
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy? :P

  • VardahothVardahoth Temecula, CAMember RarePosts: 1,472
    When I have to read through paragraphs to convince me why something is not pay to win....

    I Quit.

    http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/436845/page/1 -> http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/436845/what-killed-mmorpgs-for-you/p1

    http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2316034
    .............
    Retired Gamer: all MMORPG's have been destroyed by big business, marketing of false promises, unprofessional game makers, and a generation of "I WIN and GIVE ME NOW" (brought to you by pokeman).

  • MaurgrimMaurgrim Member RarePosts: 793
    If you can buy something that gives you an advantage against other players who don't pay are P2W.
    Fluff such as costumes or other items that don't give you an advantage against other players are not P2W.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    Iselin said:
    All of these threads and all of these discussions continually reaffirm my belief that the only way to do a PVP game is one price, one start date and everyone starts the same

    You can nitpick the finer details of these games' tiered buy-in and rationalize all you want but the real problem is that tiers exist... period.
    The whole point of a race is competition and winning. You don't start that race by placing runners already half way through the track to make it "interesting". Well, it would be interesting, but it would also ruin the race.

    That's really the root of the problem by those of us who don't like that idea. We like traditional racing. The CoE fans like rollerderby. :chuffed:
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 14,451
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 
    Notice: The artist or album content may be offensive or controversial.
    Avatar Artist: Flesh For Lulu
    Album: Plastic Fantastic
    Featured Tracks: Decline and Fall, Time & Space, I Go Crazy (bonus track on digital release)
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:

    Yes, exactly, they make changes when it impacts competitive gaming. I would agree with you that if these purchased advantages affected the competitive gaming aspects, then I would agree. However, they really don't. In the case of CoE, with my limited knowledge, instead of it being a race (of which you would not win), lasting all of 24 hours or less, they decided to sell that position. So if you buy into the game a week following release (time enough for the game to get some reviews in), it's likely that there will have been zero difference (sold or earned) in the game and standing of people in it. 

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's a Tier system and has been since the start, right? I can appreciate that you happen to dislike games that do this, but you're acting like this is something that is game breaking, when it isn't. In fact, it really isn't likely to impact anything as far as how the events would play out in the actual game. Also, it's not a competitive game, as far as I know. If you're looking for something with level playing fields, then I'd suggest something like Counterstrike. I mean there is just very little out there where advantages and the continuous balance of power aren't something that changes on a daily or weekly basis. 

    It, literally, damages nothing. This is not a game that will be featured on MLG. This is a game which will launch, run for a year, then fizzle out and be left with a community of a few (maybe ten) thousand people supporting a shell of a game. Oh! And that's not because of their model or their tiers, or anything else, it's just how it is. 
    I've often read the same in the Star Citizen forums... speaking of rationalizing away the advantages and making them seem inconsequential. It's a crowdfunded game cliche. You can find the same thing said almost exactly as you've said it in all of their forums.

    And I hear the same cliche argument coming from people who want some sort of safe and sound starting point. Why don't you tell me about your experiences with these types of games and how they have led to unfair advantages which negatively impacted your ability to play? I can honestly say I've played plenty, and I've even backed SC at a whopping $20, and I have never felt disadvantaged. This is simply a cognitive bias that leads you to believe that you're somehow being held back. Please, though, tell me I'm wrong. How many world and server firsts have you had in so-called "fair" games? 
    I give up. To go further I'd have to step on your belief system it seems and I don't like doing that :)
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,930
    Torval said:
    Scot said:
    By the posts this community do think its P2W. There are many forms of P2W both PvP and PvE, games where you can buy land in some way seem rather prone to land baron P2W.

    Crowd funding has an insidious side which makes those who have put money in want the game to be a success and start advocating it without realising how they were putting their rationality on hold. But we have seen this all before with pre-ordered games, once bought you have a vested interest in the game being decent. I don't know about the OP, but that's bound to effect the official forums.
    This is why using terms with no common agreed upon definition is a bad way to frame the argument. If we stopped trying to distill the issue down to a bandwagon slogan then arguing against it would be a lot more difficult.

    It's hard to argue "P2W" when it's subjective. It's not hard to argue the horrible effects of buying an advantage in PvP and letting players play GM. There is no more yes/no finger pointing when someone has to answer why they think having those in game is a good idea. They actually have to answer or lose the argument. 
    I refuse to even use the three letters that shall not be typed any longer because it's its own built in straw man... "what is win anyway?" :)
    When you come to a fork on the road, take it.
    You can observe a lot by just watching.
    No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

    -- Yogi --
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,748
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Iselin said:
    CrazKanuk said:

    Yes, exactly, they make changes when it impacts competitive gaming. I would agree with you that if these purchased advantages affected the competitive gaming aspects, then I would agree. However, they really don't. In the case of CoE, with my limited knowledge, instead of it being a race (of which you would not win), lasting all of 24 hours or less, they decided to sell that position. So if you buy into the game a week following release (time enough for the game to get some reviews in), it's likely that there will have been zero difference (sold or earned) in the game and standing of people in it. 

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's a Tier system and has been since the start, right? I can appreciate that you happen to dislike games that do this, but you're acting like this is something that is game breaking, when it isn't. In fact, it really isn't likely to impact anything as far as how the events would play out in the actual game. Also, it's not a competitive game, as far as I know. If you're looking for something with level playing fields, then I'd suggest something like Counterstrike. I mean there is just very little out there where advantages and the continuous balance of power aren't something that changes on a daily or weekly basis. 

    It, literally, damages nothing. This is not a game that will be featured on MLG. This is a game which will launch, run for a year, then fizzle out and be left with a community of a few (maybe ten) thousand people supporting a shell of a game. Oh! And that's not because of their model or their tiers, or anything else, it's just how it is. 
    I've often read the same in the Star Citizen forums... speaking of rationalizing away the advantages and making them seem inconsequential. It's a crowdfunded game cliche. You can find the same thing said almost exactly as you've said it in all of their forums.

    And I hear the same cliche argument coming from people who want some sort of safe and sound starting point. Why don't you tell me about your experiences with these types of games and how they have led to unfair advantages which negatively impacted your ability to play? I can honestly say I've played plenty, and I've even backed SC at a whopping $20, and I have never felt disadvantaged. This is simply a cognitive bias that leads you to believe that you're somehow being held back. Please, though, tell me I'm wrong. How many world and server firsts have you had in so-called "fair" games? 
    I give up. To go further I'd have to step on your belief system it seems and I don't like doing that :)

    Same, and I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that there are different games out there for different people. Not everything is created to be accessible to everyone. A $40,000 Tier is certainly not something accessible to me. However, there are obviously people out there who see value in that. Again, I don't. However, I can respect that they at least told me about that upfront (through their KS) which means I have the decision whether or not I want to put money into that project. It isn't like they hid it, like I might argue that SC did. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

Sign In or Register to comment.