Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

1468910

Comments

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162
    " In your bog standard MMO"

    What is "bog standard"?  I never heard that phrase before but I like it.

    As for your arguments, I'm not sure but I think you can pass down advantages and titles to alts before you die.  So the concept that nothing is permanent is not an absolute.
    It means 'run of the mill' or 'same as every other'.

    I'm guessing the origin comes from a time when companies would sell peat (from peat bogs) with each company claiming their peat was better than the competition's, but in reality all the peat was virtually the same standard.
    Nope nothing to do with peat bogs. The expression is not that old (it dates from the 1960's). It may have something to do with public toilets (bogs) and the toilet paper they used, but the reality is that no one knows.

    Well there's no proof it doesn't have anything to do with peats bogs. It wouldn't need to be old because peat was very popular all the way through into the 2000's. 
    I would say it sounds more logical than something to do with toilets or the box-standard option that gets propositioned.

    Logic from a Dubliner?
    The thing about assertions like 'it has to do with peat bogs' is that it is up to you to prove the link not up to others to disprove it. As the expression seems to have originated in Australia and England at about the same time (the 1960's) and in an urban setting the idea of something to do with peat bogs seems to be silly. Particularly as the use of th word bogs for non-domestic toilets was commonplace in Australia and England in the 1960's while references to peat bogs were negligible.
    I was wondering if it had something to do with me being a non native speaker that I wouldn't understand what "peat bogs" are or what he is trying to say.

    I'm sure even some native speakers will have difficulties understanding the meaning of phrases from Australia and Britain from the 60s...
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,514
    edited February 27
    Logic from a Dubliner?
    The thing about assertions like 'it has to do with peat bogs' is that it is up to you to prove the link not up to others to disprove it. As the expression seems to have originated in Australia and England at about the same time (the 1960's) and in an urban setting the idea of something to do with peat bogs seems to be silly. Particularly as the use of th word bogs for non-domestic toilets was commonplace in Australia and England in the 1960's while references to peat bogs were negligible.

    Oh we're resorting to personal attacks already over a small discussion, nice measure of character there my friend...

    I offered a speculative opinion as to where the phrase might have originated from, there was no assertion. Despite your claim I did not assert that "It has to do with peat bogs", I actually used the words "I'm guessing" which indicate pure speculation.

    It was you that came out with the emphatic denial "Nope, nothing to do with peat bogs.", despite not having any proof to show that it has nothing to do with peat bogs...


    Here's my logic.
    Toilets and the business you do in them has always been a no no topic in the UK, especially so back in the 60s. Therefore why would you be discussing your toilet or the state of your toilet with another person? Without that discussion there would be no pathway for a phrase about bog standards to occur.

    Gardening compost however, is something that lots of people would openly talk about, peat compost was very popular, probably the most popular compost used until early 2000s, companies were very competitive about the quality of their compost whereas the gardeners possibly didn't notice any difference, so a discussion might lead to one saying about trying out brand B and a fellow gardener saying not to bother because they're all the same standard peat, hence standard bog peat could easily evolve into bog standard.

    Pure supposition but it feels more likely a conversation that one that would involve toilets.

    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    Logic from a Dubliner?
    The thing about assertions like 'it has to do with peat bogs' is that it is up to you to prove the link not up to others to disprove it. As the expression seems to have originated in Australia and England at about the same time (the 1960's) and in an urban setting the idea of something to do with peat bogs seems to be silly. Particularly as the use of th word bogs for non-domestic toilets was commonplace in Australia and England in the 1960's while references to peat bogs were negligible.

    Oh we're resorting to personal attacks already over a small discussion, nice measure of character there my friend...

    I offered a speculative opinion as to where the phrase might have originated from, there was no assertion. Despite your claim I did not assert that "It has to do with peat bogs", I actually used the words "I'm guessing" which indicate pure speculation.

    It was you that came out with the emphatic denial "Nope, nothing to do with peat bogs.", despite not having any proof to show that it has nothing to do with peat bogs...


    Here's my logic.
    Toilets and the business you do in them has always been a no no topic in the UK, especially so back in the 60s. Therefore why would you be discussing your toilet or the state of your toilet with another person? Without that discussion there would be no pathway for a phrase about bog standards to occur.

    Gardening compost however, is something that lots of people would openly talk about, peat compost was very popular, probably the most popular compost used until early 2000s, companies were very competitive about the quality of their compost whereas the gardeners possibly didn't notice any difference, so a discussion might lead to one saying about trying out brand B and a fellow gardener saying not to bother because they're all the same standard peat, hence standard bog peat could easily evolve into bog standard.

    Pure supposition but it feels more likely a conversation that one that would involve toilets.

    LOL, amongst polite society in England you would be right about toilets. But 'bog' or 'using the bogs' wasn't from polite society, it was used by working men and school boys from government schools. How do I know? Because I am old enough to have heard it, and I did many times because I don't have 'cloth ears' (another colloquialism from the period). What I don't remember from the period (or since) is any discussion of grades of peat. By the way for gardening it would have been peat, or peat moss with no reference to bogs. The usual form of garden fertilizer was blood & bone or manure not peat. As a young teenager I used to make pocket money collecting sacks of horse and cow manure from the paddocks(fields) and selling them to local gardeners.

    Oh and by the way we also used to talk about dunnies, dunny cans and dunny men. All references to a domestic outside toilet with a pail that was collected biweekly.  We also had a saying 'she bangs like a dunny door' I leave it to you to guess the meaning.
  • majimaji CologneMember UncommonPosts: 2,084
    aliven said:
    maji said:
    To me, p2w means that you pay money to get an advantage, any advantage. The only game I know that has a cash shop and is not p2w is DOTA2, as nothing you can buy there has any impact on the gameplay. 
    Stop playing shit games then. It is really hard to find p2w games unless you swim in filth which is "pvp mmo", "asian grinders" etc. 
    It's interesting that you dare to tell me what to play, when you don't know what I play at all for what reasons or whatever. You should attemp to learn how to handle other people having a different opinion.

    Let's play Fallen Earth (blind, 300 episodes)

    Let's play Guild Wars 2 (blind, 45 episodes)

  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,726
    Logic from a Dubliner?
    The thing about assertions like 'it has to do with peat bogs' is that it is up to you to prove the link not up to others to disprove it. As the expression seems to have originated in Australia and England at about the same time (the 1960's) and in an urban setting the idea of something to do with peat bogs seems to be silly. Particularly as the use of th word bogs for non-domestic toilets was commonplace in Australia and England in the 1960's while references to peat bogs were negligible.

    Oh we're resorting to personal attacks already over a small discussion, nice measure of character there my friend...

    I offered a speculative opinion as to where the phrase might have originated from, there was no assertion. Despite your claim I did not assert that "It has to do with peat bogs", I actually used the words "I'm guessing" which indicate pure speculation.

    It was you that came out with the emphatic denial "Nope, nothing to do with peat bogs.", despite not having any proof to show that it has nothing to do with peat bogs...


    Here's my logic.
    Toilets and the business you do in them has always been a no no topic in the UK, especially so back in the 60s. Therefore why would you be discussing your toilet or the state of your toilet with another person? Without that discussion there would be no pathway for a phrase about bog standards to occur.

    Gardening compost however, is something that lots of people would openly talk about, peat compost was very popular, probably the most popular compost used until early 2000s, companies were very competitive about the quality of their compost whereas the gardeners possibly didn't notice any difference, so a discussion might lead to one saying about trying out brand B and a fellow gardener saying not to bother because they're all the same standard peat, hence standard bog peat could easily evolve into bog standard.

    Pure supposition but it feels more likely a conversation that one that would involve toilets.

    LOL, amongst polite society in England you would be right about toilets. But 'bog' or 'using the bogs' wasn't from polite society, it was used by working men and school boys from government schools. How do I know? Because I am old enough to have heard it, and I did many times because I don't have 'cloth ears' (another colloquialism from the period). What I don't remember from the period (or since) is any discussion of grades of peat. By the way for gardening it would have been peat, or peat moss with no reference to bogs. The usual form of garden fertilizer was blood & bone or manure not peat. As a young teenager I used to make pocket money collecting sacks of horse and cow manure from the paddocks(fields) and selling them to local gardeners.

    Oh and by the way we also used to talk about dunnies, dunny cans and dunny men. All references to a domestic outside toilet with a pail that was collected biweekly.  We also had a saying 'she bangs like a dunny door' I leave it to you to guess the meaning.

    Yeah I can't really imagine a time where the English would not talk about toilets.  I've been exposed to enough culture from the English and the surrounding countries to realize they love talking about bodily functions with hilariously colorful slang.

    Well I think we've gotten to the bottom of this "bog standard" thing.
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,726
    Rhoklaw said:
    @Gdemami You know what's funny. When I typed in your name in order to reference you directly, you know what popped up right under your name? GdemamiTroll. It's funny because that is exactly what I was going to ask you, is if that is your online profession. I know you don't care, trolls never do. You are also the only member on these forums I know of that goes out of their way to use LOL votes in an attempt to promote your trollish antics. All I can say is, no one ever cares what you say anymore. You're a known instigator and a known troll. Why you don't just stay quiet and keep hitting your LOL's is beyond me. I don't mind people who debate, but your arguments are just horrible. So horrible I can't tell if you are serious or just being a troll.

    Let him "LOL".  It's much worse when he speaks.
  • IshkalIshkal Schaumburg, ILMember UncommonPosts: 202
    ALL Nexon games are pay 2 win. If you drop dollars you win hence pay 2 win. It is not even the abstract pay 2 win like; some sort of advantage, or the more bag space helps you win, or high end crafting mats helps you win, or the stated clothes help you win. No no Nexon is in yo face pay 2 win like U have to pay if you want to win in all of it's online games. If you are not a Nexon vet or have not played many of their games to end game content here is how it goes. Awesome game + awesome leveling experience+ great concepts. Then when you hit max level they know they got you hooked cause you tagged along on the scam long enough to be invested. Then BAM BITCHES!!!!! All of the sudden massive RNG that months of play time have a 3% chance or so to over come ooooooor you can shell out some money. Then there's one of my favorites they pull limiting in game resources from gold to mats, but not to worry nexon always offers cash to in game currency exchanges for you convience at a insane stupid rate like $10.00 to 4 gold. This was my attempt to warn all ya out there but by all means enjoy the game if ya want Nexons games are pretty fun over all until they try and force you to shell out large sums of cash and ruin the game experience for any one not doing so. 
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,514
    edited February 27
    LOL, amongst polite society in England you would be right about toilets. But 'bog' or 'using the bogs' wasn't from polite society, it was used by working men and school boys from government schools. How do I know? Because I am old enough to have heard it, and I did many times because I don't have 'cloth ears' (another colloquialism from the period). What I don't remember from the period (or since) is any discussion of grades of peat. By the way for gardening it would have been peat, or peat moss with no reference to bogs. The usual form of garden fertilizer was blood & bone or manure not peat. As a young teenager I used to make pocket money collecting sacks of horse and cow manure from the paddocks(fields) and selling them to local gardeners.

    Oh and by the way we also used to talk about dunnies, dunny cans and dunny men. All references to a domestic outside toilet with a pail that was collected biweekly.  We also had a saying 'she bangs like a dunny door' I leave it to you to guess the meaning.

    I'm also old enough, your insistence that the phrase originates from "toilets bogs" remains nothing but supposition, if you want to claim it is the origin of "bog standard" then you should really present a bit more proof.

    Gardening peat comes from peat bogs... Ireland being one of the primary places of harvesting hence Shamrock Peat and the like. If you don't know this then it's no surprise that the gardening scenario might have also escaped your notice...


    Edit: The stupid thing here is that I am not saying you're wrong, there are a variety of suppositions for the origin of the phrase "bog standard" but none have been agreed or settled on.
    If you want to tell me that my suppostion is wrong then the least you can do is tell me why yours is right...
    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • Spaced76Spaced76 Kingston, ONMember UncommonPosts: 27
    ste2000 said:
    simon155 said:
    And I'd say it's NOT P2W for the following reasons:

    1. You can lose anything you buy to another player, even an NPC potentially, with nothing left to show for your money.

    Seriously?

    First of all, you can't win in a MMO, so there is no MMO which is literally P2W.
    The term Pay to Win is just a convenient term and it is not meant to be taken literally.
    A loose translation for it would be "Pay to have an advantage over other players" but as you can see it doesn't sound as good, so the community forged the "P2W" terms which is more convenient to use in discussions and generally quickly understandable.


    Having establish that.
    It looks like CoE is P2W as having a clear advantage over players is like cheating.
    Buying lands, kingship, huge head start time, it makes it unfair on other players that don't have the same financial power as you do, and conveys the message that rich people are better than you, just like it happens in real life, but in a game I really don't want to see that.
    It doesn't matter that your incompetence as a player make you lose that advantage that you bought, that's irrelevant, that only confirm you should not play games if nothing else, and invest the money in something you are really good at....and leave games to gamers.

    Archeage is p2w . u can pay if you do you win . Archeage motto the more you pay the better you win.
  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    edited February 27
    I don't know why people get fired up about a game that without major outside funding, will never be released. The devs even said, multiple times, that the funding they have received/were raising was for a tech demo. So, no big money investor, no game. And all the big promises and hype and BS will amount to exactly ZERO. People "donating" to this game, and especially those buying the bigger packages, will probably end up with nothing for their money.
    Post edited by Burntvet on
  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 62
    Burntvet said:
    I don't know why people get fired up about a game that without major outside funding, will never be released. The devs even said, multiple times, that the funding they have received/were raising was for a tech demo. So, no big money investor, no game. And all the big promises and hype and BS will amount to exactly ZERO. People "donating" to this game, and especially those buying the bigger packages, will probably end up with nothing for their money.
    The firing up is due to the direction so many dev studios take these days.  Many see a very interesting game described and get excited about something new/different, only to learn people are forking over large sums for a "chance" to be the center of the game's universe.  Or one of the centers.   :p  

    Many in this community don't want more titles with P2W monetization and will speak out in the hopes that the community and the devs will take notice and make changes before they hit the point of no return in their design.

    What I want to see Ashes do is:
    1. Raise funds through a proper tender offer.  Let the whales who can afford $10k buy shares, instead of fiefdoms for the launch.
    2. Make the ascension to royalty either a process within the game or use a lottery system to "seed" the initial aristocracy.
    What every dev/pub should stand behind: "We're committed to creating a fair playing field for all players. You cannot gain gameplay advantage by spending real money in [INSERT GAME NAME]."
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Elmira, ONMember EpicPosts: 5,744
    Papasmerv said:
    Burntvet said:
    I don't know why people get fired up about a game that without major outside funding, will never be released. The devs even said, multiple times, that the funding they have received/were raising was for a tech demo. So, no big money investor, no game. And all the big promises and hype and BS will amount to exactly ZERO. People "donating" to this game, and especially those buying the bigger packages, will probably end up with nothing for their money.
    The firing up is due to the direction so many dev studios take these days.  Many see a very interesting game described and get excited about something new/different, only to learn people are forking over large sums for a "chance" to be the center of the game's universe.  Or one of the centers.   :p  

    Many in this community don't want more titles with P2W monetization and will speak out in the hopes that the community and the devs will take notice and make changes before they hit the point of no return in their design.

    What I want to see Ashes do is:
    1. Raise funds through a proper tender offer.  Let the whales who can afford $10k buy shares, instead of fiefdoms for the launch.
    2. Make the ascension to royalty either a process within the game or use a lottery system to "seed" the initial aristocracy.


    There has been some outcry over this particular topic, but the fact that it's still so hotly debated on whether or not it's P2W simply illustrates how poorly-defined P2W is. Let's say I was in a 100m race with Usain Bolt and I paid $10,000 for a 50m head start. Is that P2W? If I paid $10,000 for rocket shoes (with rails to keep me straight) that went 100 mph, then would that be P2W? 

    Honestly, though, there are REAL problematic games out there and the issue is that the community wants to label everything is P2W, not the people who are REAL offenders (like selling BiS gear through the cash shop). This could very well be a P2W game because of this, but since everything is P2W, how is this any worse? P2W isn't the scarlet letter it really should be, and that's due to the community marking everyone with it. I would be surprised if anything less than 90% of F2P games had some form of P2W talk about them online. 

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

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairMember EpicPosts: 7,826
    simon155 said:
    It's the subject of much discussion, because quite frankly the game looks awesome. 
    How can you say this?
    What looks awesome? 
    The game? What game?
    The concept?
    Sure the concept looks awesome, however, look back at 2011/2012. GW2 and SWTOR. How awesome did those concepts look? Dynamic Events promised to change how we played MMOs.

    I've played and really enjoyed both games, and financially supported both of those games. While I can say they were worth the time and money I spent on them, I felt like the finished product brought very little of anything they promised, to the table. IMO, they simply failed to deliver.And these were budgeted and funded games.

    We have an awesome concept. But there is far too much that has to happen for an awesome concept to become an awesome game to make any calls just yet.
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Panama City, FLMember RarePosts: 1,433

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    ...and never was.
  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,162

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    The definition here is clear: Pay 10.000$ to own land and become King instantly.

    Your post is just some general vague statement and holds no value.
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,278
    Dakeru said:

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    The definition here is clear: Pay 10.000$ to own land and become King instantly.

    Your post is just some general vague statement and holds no value.
    Do kings "win?" What exactly do they win? Is every player meant to be a king?

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,812
    edited February 27
    Kyleran said:
    Dakeru said:

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    The definition here is clear: Pay 10.000$ to own land and become King instantly.

    Your post is just some general vague statement and holds no value.
    Do kings "win?" What exactly do they win? Is every player meant to be a king?
    That's kind of the point I was trying to make but few people seem to see where I'm coming from.

    Ah, well.  As Papasmerv aptly pointed out, to each their own.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,278
    Kyleran said:
    Dakeru said:

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    The definition here is clear: Pay 10.000$ to own land and become King instantly.

    Your post is just some general vague statement and holds no value.
    Do kings "win?" What exactly do they win? Is every player meant to be a king?
    That's kind of the point I was trying to make but few people seem to see where I'm coming from.

    Ah, well.  As Papasmerv aptly pointed out, to each their own.
    Yeah, but Papasmerv is confused and thinks this is an Ashes thread. ;)

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon


  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 62

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean the community agrees.  No one has yet to argue how CoE is not P2W aka P4A (Pay for Advantage).  Everyone uses every debate tactic under the sun to divert attention, obfuscate what the argument is about, incorrectly restate the opposing position and on and on.

    None of that argument matters.  All that matters is that CoE is taking a very different approach to funding its game which involves people paying thousands of dollars for an early advantage.  I don't care what you call it, but I call it a game the MMORPG.com community should NOT support.  Titles like this are eroding the gaming element and bringing in gambling and stock market element in the hopes to shake things up and make a buck.  

    Sorry, we don't want any of the snake oil you are selling.

    Produce a product and then we can talk business.   Or let us invest in your product, should we choose, and then get a cut of the profits.  
    What every dev/pub should stand behind: "We're committed to creating a fair playing field for all players. You cannot gain gameplay advantage by spending real money in [INSERT GAME NAME]."
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,812
    edited February 28
    Papasmerv said:

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean the community agrees.  No one has yet to argue how CoE is not P2W aka P4A (Pay for Advantage).  Everyone uses every debate tactic under the sun to divert attention, obfuscate what the argument is about, incorrectly restate the opposing position and on and on.

    None of that argument matters.  All that matters is that CoE is taking a very different approach to funding its game which involves people paying thousands of dollars for an early advantage.  I don't care what you call it, but I call it a game the MMORPG.com community should NOT support.  Titles like this are eroding the gaming element and bringing in gambling and stock market element in the hopes to shake things up and make a buck.  

    Sorry, we don't want any of the snake oil you are selling.

    Produce a product and then we can talk business.   Or let us invest in your product, should we choose, and then get a cut of the profits.  
    By "we" I think you mean you, because you certainly don't speak for me.  Chronicles of Elyria is definitely a game I want to see happen.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCMember LegendaryPosts: 9,927
    Iselin said:
    Asm0deus said:
    Xodic said:
    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. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    This post should be stickied as the definition of P2W.
    Nah.  It's not that simple.  "Winning" in a virtual world RPG isn't necessarily who owns a castle or who plows fields on a farm.  It's not about who has the biggest dick and whether or not they paid real money for it.  If that's what it's about for you, then this isn't your game.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    I don't disagree with your premise but when I look at Chronicles of Elyria ... I think the way they are setting up the Kingdoms isn't a bad approach.  I understand that it will deter a lot of people who want to start on a level playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as I don't think this would be their cup of tea anyway.
    If you take the money and KS tiered rewards away from it and they had a random draw to get people to seed the game 3 months ahead of time, they could accomplish the same objective. That part of it is an interesting design goal. Doing it based on donation tier is a different thing altogether.
    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 --
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Boca Raton, FLMember EpicPosts: 7,197
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    Asm0deus said:
    Xodic said:
    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. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    This post should be stickied as the definition of P2W.
    Nah.  It's not that simple.  "Winning" in a virtual world RPG isn't necessarily who owns a castle or who plows fields on a farm.  It's not about who has the biggest dick and whether or not they paid real money for it.  If that's what it's about for you, then this isn't your game.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    I don't disagree with your premise but when I look at Chronicles of Elyria ... I think the way they are setting up the Kingdoms isn't a bad approach.  I understand that it will deter a lot of people who want to start on a level playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as I don't think this would be their cup of tea anyway.
    If you take the money and KS tiered rewards away from it and they had a random draw to get people to seed the game 3 months ahead of time, they could accomplish the same objective. That part of it is an interesting design goal. Doing it based on donation tier is a different thing altogether.
    Beyond a random draw... they actually PLAN to have a "Kingdoms of Elyria" pre-game.  That is where the sizes of the various Kingdoms will be determined.  Not all "Counts" will have the same size land, nor Barons nor any other title holder.    They could simply have made this portion open to all of the players and their success or failure in this aspect of the game would have done the "seeding" job for them.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 1,812
    Iselin said:
    Iselin said:
    Asm0deus said:
    Xodic said:
    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. 
    The definition and meaning are clear to everyone. People simply choose to tighten the buckle on their horse blinders in a last ditch attempt to convince themselves that the genre is not devolving.

    Definition of win

    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune
    1:b :  to obtain by work : earn <striving to win a living from the sterile soil>

    5:  to reach by expenditure of effort

    A game is built to be played, playing the game is the effort. Anything you can purchase to bypass effort within the game is inherently "Pay to Win".

    You played the game and earned a castle - you played to win the castle.
    You bought a castle in the cash shop - you paid to win the castle.
    1:a :  to get possession of by effort or fortune

    It's not subjective.
    This post should be stickied as the definition of P2W.
    Nah.  It's not that simple.  "Winning" in a virtual world RPG isn't necessarily who owns a castle or who plows fields on a farm.  It's not about who has the biggest dick and whether or not they paid real money for it.  If that's what it's about for you, then this isn't your game.
    I don't expect anyone to agree on a definitive P2W usage since people misuse the term to suit their own arguments, but the definition @Xodic put forward is pretty damn good broad though it might be.

    It puts the emphasis where it should be: did you achieve or obtain whatever it is by a) playing the game or by b) buying something with RL cash to bypass the game play?

    To a lesser or greater degree "b" is always something that undermines game play and promotes bad, inconvenient game design simply to sell you the inconvenience relief.


    I don't disagree with your premise but when I look at Chronicles of Elyria ... I think the way they are setting up the Kingdoms isn't a bad approach.  I understand that it will deter a lot of people who want to start on a level playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing as I don't think this would be their cup of tea anyway.
    If you take the money and KS tiered rewards away from it and they had a random draw to get people to seed the game 3 months ahead of time, they could accomplish the same objective. That part of it is an interesting design goal. Doing it based on donation tier is a different thing altogether.
    Beyond a random draw... they actually PLAN to have a "Kingdoms of Elyria" pre-game.  That is where the sizes of the various Kingdoms will be determined.  Not all "Counts" will have the same size land, nor Barons nor any other title holder.    They could simply have made this portion open to all of the players and their success or failure in this aspect of the game would have done the "seeding" job for them.
    Yeah, but then we wouldn't have these fabulous forum debates.  This is more fun!  :)
  • NildenNilden Canada, NBMember RarePosts: 2,162

    When everything is P2W, nothing is P2W

    The term means nothing now, it's been used so much for everything that it holds no value any more.

    The only problem I have with that is the entire decade following the release of UO. Where there were no cash shops or P2W and instead of selling gold they banned gold sellers.

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


Sign In or Register to comment.