Chronciles of Elyria - Not Pay to Win

1457910

Comments

  • KajidourdenKajidourden Panama City, FLMember RarePosts: 1,486
    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.  

    The problem is nobody has the exact same definition, so it's worthless.

    Really what it means today is "I don't like this, so it's P2W"
  • PapasmervPapasmerv Brooklyn, NYMember UncommonPosts: 63
    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.  

    The problem is nobody has the exact same definition, so it's worthless.

    Really what it means today is "I don't like this, so it's P2W"
    And still no argument as to why CoE isn't P2W...

    Ok, indulge me.  I really want to understand your point of view.  Let's use an analogy.

    Say you, me and a few of our buds are going to play cards.  Say 5 card draw poker.  The ante is $5.  

    But we're going to play differently than most people do.  For $10 you get an extra card draw and for $25 you get 2 extra cards to draw.  And if you put in $100 then you get to choose 2 cards from the remaining deck while being able to see what the cards are.

    I would describe the above as P2W.  We all have a base amount to pay to play.  Then we all have the opportunity to pay more for more cards and can even elect to put in $100 for our "not blind" choice of 2 cards.  Sure we could spend the $100+25+10+5 and still lose, although the odds are very much in our favor.  That's understood.  But that's how we choose to play cards.

    With this set of gaming rules and only these rules please explain to  me how the above card play scenario is not P2W.
    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]."
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairMember EpicPosts: 7,965
    This whole debate over "Can't define P2W so there is no such thing" is BS. Look at the game and what does real money get you? It doesn't take a PhD in Astro Physics or some universally accepted definition of "P2W" to determine that "Hey, something's amiss here". Just look at the dam game and what you get for your money.

    Since the day I started browsing this site, this argument has not changed. And yet most (not all but most) of these games where this argument has been applied really do have significant RMT based mechanics where by players who pay get to enjoy the game in ways that those who do not pay, are made to wish they could.
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    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...
    LOL,  the problem with your supposition is that it is based on Irish usage of the word bog. The expression 'bog standard' emerges in 1960's England and Australia, not Ireland. It was a working class epithet, as nearly all such expressions are, not a polite middle class expression.

    The stupid thing is not who is right or wrong, no one knows, but that you insist on an upper middle class origin for a working class expression.
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    On pay to win or not.
    Is being a 'king' in the game in and of itself something desirable?
    Is it something you would work hard to achieve? Work to keep? 
    From what I have read yes the title of 'king' is a highly desirable thing.

    Can you buy that title? Yes? Then the game is pay to win.
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 2,003
    edited February 28
    On pay to win or not.
    Is being a 'king' in the game in and of itself something desirable?
    Is it something you would work hard to achieve? Work to keep? 
    From what I have read yes the title of 'king' is a highly desirable thing.

    Can you buy that title? Yes? Then the game is pay to win.
    From what you've read the title of King is highly desirable?  Not to me it isn't.  I'm not looking for a 2nd job, and that's essentially what maintaining a kingdom in a virtual world is going to entail from the descriptions I've read.  I'm sure some people would love it but I suspect many more people would probably enjoy the idea of being King but not actually enjoy the reality of maintaining their kingdom.
    Post edited by SedrynTyros on
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,580
    edited February 28
    LOL,  the problem with your supposition is that it is based on Irish usage of the word bog. The expression 'bog standard' emerges in 1960's England and Australia, not Ireland. It was a working class epithet, as nearly all such expressions are, not a polite middle class expression.

    The stupid thing is not who is right or wrong, no one knows, but that you insist on an upper middle class origin for a working class expression.

    What? There is no Irish usage of the word "bog". It's a term that's synonymous wherever there is wetland.

    The only thing I am insisting is that as there is no proof for the origin of the phrase and therefore a variety of options are applicable. My proposal makles more linguistic sense than that of toilets. It is you that is repeatedly insisting that the speculation is wrong despite not having any proof to the contrary.


    From phrase.org:
    But why 'bog standard'? It may result from the association with the word 'bog', which has long been used in the UK to mean toilet. Indeed, that meaning is used in one of the more ingenious derivations that correspondents have suggested - that it was coined in the BBC as a derogatory description of the production values of their rival ATV, an organisation run by Lew Grade. The linguistic progression is supposed to go Lew Grade -> loo grade -> toilet quality -> bog standard. A neat construction, but most likely a back-formation and, hearsay apart, there's no evidence to support it.

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bog-standard.html

    What a stupid discussion.


    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,048
    edited February 28
    The definition of pay-to-win varies from person to person, but for that specific person, that's what really matters*.I think that if a game's so controversial that it needs a thread in the first place specifically to explain why it's not pay-to-win, odds are pretty good the game's pay-to-win by most peoples' definition, even if not the thread starter's.  Otherwise the few people for whom it didn't meet their definition of pay-to-win wouldn't feel obliged to make such a thread defending the game in the first place.

    *actually, what REALLY matters in-game is whether or not it's hurting the game by shifting away developer resources towards the pay aspects as well as making the game more based around one's real life money rather than in-game actions and how much that will hurt the game's fun and customer retention, but one's personal definition of pay-to-win matters more when it comes to forum wars, which is going to get more emphasis considering that there is no game for CoE in the first place at this moment.
    Post edited by Tiamat64 on
  • holdenhamletholdenhamlet Member EpicPosts: 3,735
    edited February 28
    On pay to win or not.
    Is being a 'king' in the game in and of itself something desirable?
    Is it something you would work hard to achieve? Work to keep? 
    From what I have read yes the title of 'king' is a highly desirable thing.

    Can you buy that title? Yes? Then the game is pay to win.
    From what you've read the title of King is highly desirable?  Not to me it isn't.  I'm not looking for a 2nd job, and that's essentially what maintaining a kingdom in a virtual world is going to entail from the descriptions I've read.  I'm sure some people would love it but I suspect many more people would probably enjoy the idea of being King but not actually enjoy the reality of maintaining their kingdom.

    This argument is made a lot in this thread, but I don't buy it.  Maybe in real life, one would rather be a common man than a King with the "weight of the world" on his shoulders.  But I highly doubt that's how it's going to play out in game.

    In game as a King I suspect you can do whatever the f you want.  That will be the fun of it.  Before you perma-die, you pass the title down to your heir so you can do it again with an alt.   

    And as a common man you will be spending your days hitting rocks for resource materials or grinding on mobs.  Your only real chance at advancement will be through theft or murder, both highly punishable.

    Don't get me wrong, I REALLY want to see this game released to try it out.  I love that it's really trying something new.  I will definitely try it.  I just think this way they've gone about funding is dangerous.  I think it could turn off a lot of people.  It turns off me for sure, but I love MMOs and love seeing new things tried in MMOs.

    This isn't the only "shady" part of the model, either.  You have to buy lives or you lose everything when you perma-die.  That strikes to the core of MMOs, which is you can always "pick up where you left off" whenever you want.  In this game, you are being blackmailed for your character's life.

    That's 2 "shady" red flags before the game is even released.  Yes, both can be defended, but I think there must have been more elegant ways to go about making money.  Both of them make me feel like I'm being extorted before even playing the game, and make me scared of future monetization methods if they have no qualms about making players feel that way already.

    Bottomline: I like that death will have meaning in this game, but it may be too much for anyone reasonable to bear.  Not only is it full loot, but it may cost you IRL money, and people WILL be starting out with (and passing down to alts) enormous paid advantages over you.
    Post edited by holdenhamlet on
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    rpmcmurphy said: HutU
    LOL,  the problem with your supposition is that it is based on Irish usage of the word bog. The expression 'bog standard' emerges in 1960's England and Australia, not Ireland. It was a working class epithet, as nearly all such expressions are, not a polite middle class expression.

    The stupid thing is not who is right or wrong, no one knows, but that you insist on an upper middle class origin for a working class expression.

    What? There is no Irish usage of the word "bog". It's a term that's synonymous wherever there is wetland.

    The only thing I am insisting is that as there is no proof for the origin of the phrase and therefore a variety of options are applicable. My proposal makles more linguistic sense than that of toilets. It is you that is repeatedly insisting that the speculation is wrong despite not having any proof to the contrary.


    From phrase.org:
    But why 'bog standard'? It may result from the association with the word 'bog', which has long been used in the UK to mean toilet. Indeed, that meaning is used in one of the more ingenious derivations that correspondents have suggested - that it was coined in the BBC as a derogatory description of the production values of their rival ATV, an organisation run by Lew Grade. The linguistic progression is supposed to go Lew Grade -> loo grade -> toilet quality -> bog standard. A neat construction, but most likely a back-formation and, hearsay apart, there's no evidence to support it.

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/bog-standard.html

    What a stupid discussion.


    Yes it is a stupid discussion.

    I find the Loo Grade story highly unlikely, for exactly the same reason as I find your peat moss story highly unlikely. They look and sound like back-formations by middle class people trying to avoid the obvious working class origin of the term.

    Bog paper, bog rolls, dunny paper and toilet paper were all terms in use in the 1960's. To me 'bog standard' is an obvious fit in this context, particularly as it was widely used from the beginning and not constrained to the English Television scene, if it had been I would not have encountered it. 

    Just give it up, your uninspiring recent construction is just silly. While no one can be certain of the origin peat bogs are a very remote possibility, while bogs (toilets) and bog paper were so commonplace that they have to be the most likely point of origin.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,580
    ...while bogs (toilets) and bog paper were so commonplace that they have to be the most likely point of origin.

    Complete and utter conjecture, that's all it is. No more likely than my proposal despite what you might want.

    You're simply attaching an assumption to a piece of evidence and making the narrative support it while claiming it is more likely because of your "feelings".

    Just because toilets were more common than gardens is hardly enough evidence to conclude that it must therefore be the origin. That's a ludicrous basis for an argument.

    Whatever, I'm done discussing this with you.
  • craftseekercraftseeker kynetonMember RarePosts: 1,547
    ...while bogs (toilets) and bog paper were so commonplace that they have to be the most likely point of origin.

    Complete and utter conjecture, that's all it is. No more likely than my proposal despite what you might want.

    You're simply attaching an assumption to a piece of evidence and making the narrative support it while claiming it is more likely because of your "feelings".

    Just because toilets were more common than gardens is hardly enough evidence to conclude that it must therefore be the origin. That's a ludicrous basis for an argument.

    Whatever, I'm done discussing this with you.
    You just don't get it. I have heard the expression 'bog standard' far more often than I have heard references to peat bogs or peat moss and I have heard toilets referred to as bogs many times more.

    You alone are the one with the ludicrous line about gardens. It is not the number of toilets or the number of gardens that is relevant. What is relevant was the contemporary (the 1960's) usage of the term 'bog paper' as compared to the frequency of references to 'peat bog' in working class Australia and working class England. On that count ypur speculation fails miserably. Which is probably why, as far as I can see, no one else has ever come up with your theory before, despite fanciful theories about meccano sets, Lou Grade and other suggestions.
  • CostaniusCostanius NiedersachsenMember UncommonPosts: 187
    edited March 4
    What will a king or duke title get You in Cronicles of Elyria? What will You "win" if You play that position as it is intended by the game design? As a "king" You won't just sit on Your throne doing nothing and feeling great about yourself!

    In my opinion it will be
    -pay to work a lot and build a community of players. Like a CEO of a multinational company!
    -pay to invest a lot of time accomodating guilds and players into a social ingame system & organisation (kingdom)
    -pay to manage and deal with all kinds of player problems, conflicts, complaints and bullsh*t
    -pay to effectively do a community building and community managing job, but just ingame within the game mechanics
    -pay to have a second job next to Your real life and other hobbys

    If You don't do this or don't have the skills to deal with guilds and players and organise a pleasant gaming experience FOR THEM they will either leave Your kingdom/duchy etc and move on or overthrow You out of Your position sooner or later! All titles are not bound to Your account but can be lost also.
    So what do You get being a king? A lot of work, a lot less spare time and a lot of potential problems with hundreds or even thousands of players.

    So is it pay-to-win? In my opinion it's just outsourcing of community building to a few players who think they'll be able to do such a job and are even willing to pay for trying it!
    And failing and loosing a kingdom or any other title due to mismanagement with all its conflict and drama is intended to happen and part of the game design!
    When the game is released the main source of income will be the subscriptions-like replacements & renewals of souls/sparks of life.
    So pay-to-win? No!
    Pay to get a head start, pay to get some exclusive info and pay-to-try to be a CEO and successful community manager: Yes!
    Post edited by Costanius on

    -----------------------------------
    Life is too short to play bad games.

  • DakeruDakeru Member EpicPosts: 3,237
    Sorry but you guys are trying way too hard to defend this.

    Back in the days your list would have been something like this:
    Buying weapons from the cash shop is not pay to win because..

    -people will expect you to perform well in guild vs guild matches
    -you will have to fight real hard
    -you will have to keep fighting and winning not to disappoint anyone


    Wether it's a weapon to conquer land or buying land and titles immediately - it is pay to win.

    CoE is the very incarnation of pay to win and it's really a shame that people are trying to deflect this by bringing up some empty promises of "completely new and challenging game mechanics that can't be compared to anything you have ever seen before!"
  • NegativeJoeNegativeJoe hluboka nad vltavouMember UncommonPosts: 208
    Full disclaimer i did not read this entire thread.  I just started researching this game today, and read their forums. 

    I have NEVER seen a more P2W mode than this. 

    The OP's arguemint is you can lose it. 

    THis game is basically like lining people up at a starting line, telling them where they ahe to go, then selling one guy a car, another a jet, another a bike, and hoping 1,000,000 peole in bare feet will walk to fill the server!

    Then if you really pay up, we will just heliport you to the finish line before the starting gun goes off. 

    Zero chance of a game like this succeeding. None, you have to engage the average player.

    ::::26:: ::::26:: ::::26::

  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 2,003
    Full disclaimer i did not read this entire thread.  I just started researching this game today, and read their forums. 

    I have NEVER seen a more P2W mode than this. 

    The OP's arguemint is you can lose it. 

    THis game is basically like lining people up at a starting line, telling them where they ahe to go, then selling one guy a car, another a jet, another a bike, and hoping 1,000,000 peole in bare feet will walk to fill the server!

    Then if you really pay up, we will just heliport you to the finish line before the starting gun goes off. 

    Zero chance of a game like this succeeding. None, you have to engage the average player.
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,888
    edited March 7
    Full disclaimer i did not read this entire thread.  I just started researching this game today, and read their forums. 

    I have NEVER seen a more P2W mode than this. 

    The OP's arguemint is you can lose it. 

    THis game is basically like lining people up at a starting line, telling them where they ahe to go, then selling one guy a car, another a jet, another a bike, and hoping 1,000,000 peole in bare feet will walk to fill the server!

    Then if you really pay up, we will just heliport you to the finish line before the starting gun goes off. 

    Zero chance of a game like this succeeding. None, you have to engage the average player.
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.
    No, only a race for those who pay for it. ;)
    Post edited by Kyleran on

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    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




  • roquekazinroquekazin Under the SeaMember UncommonPosts: 82
    edited March 7
    Kyleran said:
    Full disclaimer i did not read this entire thread.  I just started researching this game today, and read their forums. 

    I have NEVER seen a more P2W mode than this. 

    The OP's arguemint is you can lose it. 

    THis game is basically like lining people up at a starting line, telling them where they ahe to go, then selling one guy a car, another a jet, another a bike, and hoping 1,000,000 peole in bare feet will walk to fill the server!

    Then if you really pay up, we will just heliport you to the finish line before the starting gun goes off. 

    Zero chance of a game like this succeeding. None, you have to engage the average player.
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.
    No, only a race for those who pay for it. ;)
    Can't see a way to argue with that. It's true.
    Post edited by roquekazin on
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,055
    edited March 7
    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?
    I get your perspective here.  However, whether kings win or not (and what that means) isn't the crux of the issue, pursuant to the definition Xodic gave (which I wholeheartedly think is the best and most objective way to define the term "P2W," which is terribly specific to one side of the coin).

    Games are made as hobbies.  Ways to spend time.  Paying to skip the point of the game- spending time having fun- or paying specifically to endow your avatar with powers not earned or accrued through spending time playing the game- the point of electronic entertainment here- is something that most of us dislike because it bleeds economic stratification into our virtual worlds.  Specifically, in a land control PvP game, it provides advantages to a player otherwise accrued or earned by playing the game via a one-time lump sum payment to the devs.  It sets an awful precedent, which is why I think many see it being pretty much the same as P2W.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • NegativeJoeNegativeJoe hluboka nad vltavouMember UncommonPosts: 208
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.

    you can try to brush it off with these obscure comments, but the point of any player playing any mmorpg is to get powerful. max the content, whether  its max crafting, finishing raid progression, getting that perfect template in daoc or whatever. 

    this game ,k you have guys starting out buying entire kingdoms, some others running counties, and you expect the averag3e person to play this being a peon?  

    the only hope is that no one ever actually looks into it.  I am guessing you are one of the ones who paid money or something?  and finally realizing there is no real advantage because the 80 other people playing have the same pair of roller skates

    ::::26:: ::::26:: ::::26::

  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer ChairMember EpicPosts: 7,965
    edited March 7
    I think the whole argument is moot.

    Post edited by GeezerGamer on
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros USMember EpicPosts: 2,003
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.

    you can try to brush it off with these obscure comments, but the point of any player playing any mmorpg is to get powerful. max the content, whether  its max crafting, finishing raid progression, getting that perfect template in daoc or whatever. 

    this game ,k you have guys starting out buying entire kingdoms, some others running counties, and you expect the averag3e person to play this being a peon?  

    the only hope is that no one ever actually looks into it.  I am guessing you are one of the ones who paid money or something?  and finally realizing there is no real advantage because the 80 other people playing have the same pair of roller skates
    That is the object of most MMOS, yes.  To get more powerful, to get the best gear, etc.  But the design goals of this game are to create a virtual world not yet another gear-grind where every single character ends up being savior of the world a la World of Warcraft.  It's not that type of game.  In this game, some people will be going for their own Kingdoms, sure, but not everyone obviously.  Not everyone gets to be the hero or the king.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Nashville, TNMember EpicPosts: 3,055
    edited March 8
    Actually, this game is nothing like lining people up at a starting line, etc., because this game isn't a race for every player to become King.

    you can try to brush it off with these obscure comments, but the point of any player playing any mmorpg is to get powerful. max the content, whether  its max crafting, finishing raid progression, getting that perfect template in daoc or whatever. 

    this game ,k you have guys starting out buying entire kingdoms, some others running counties, and you expect the averag3e person to play this being a peon?  

    the only hope is that no one ever actually looks into it.  I am guessing you are one of the ones who paid money or something?  and finally realizing there is no real advantage because the 80 other people playing have the same pair of roller skates
    That is the object of most MMOS, yes.  To get more powerful, to get the best gear, etc.  But the design goals of this game are to create a virtual world not yet another gear-grind where every single character ends up being savior of the world a la World of Warcraft.  It's not that type of game.  In this game, some people will be going for their own Kingdoms, sure, but not everyone obviously.  Not everyone gets to be the hero or the king.
    I'm right with ya Sedryn, but unless a kingdom grants no real bonuses to the player, I would highly doubt that even whales are willing to spend 10,000 for what amounts to an extra nameplate above their character's heads.

    That's the catch 22 that selling such high-dollar items places these developers into: the whales that spend a lot of money will continue to spend, but only if they deem the product they receive worthwhile.  Conversely, the more benefits you provide to the customer at the behest of his almighty dollar, the more you become a slave to that customer's whims and the more disgusting a taste left in the mouths of normal customers who do not wish/can not afford to spend thousands of dollars on one game.

    Without spending time trying to mine through forum and preview posts on the internet, I would safely bet large sums of money myself that having your own kingships comes with an entire court of benefits (see what I did there??  No??  You're right, I can do better).  These aren't earned by playing the game or forming any kind of coalition through building relationships between groups of players in-game or even on the game forums.  It comes directly from buying those benefits through the kingship pledge package.  

    An analogy, to complete the point: you are paired off with another person and each provided sustenance from a centralized "god" (the developer), yet the person next to you was served steak, locally-sourced eggs, the classiest of wines and all the trimmings.  You receive your daily meal of crackers, an apple, and water...  Do you really think, just because your food provides sustenance the same as his, that you're on the same level or he does not enjoy a more advantageous position?  What if he starts offering you bites of his steak, but only if you clean his room?  Are you disadvantaged then?

    Point being, just because you do not place players in direct competition with one another, it does not mean that the sour taste of socioeconomic stratification cannot still be felt in games like these, where players can buy their way to literal in-game power.  A kingship, and the benefits that go along with it, are examples of in-game power.  Maybe he only receives taxes as king; well, he has inherently more buying power than players who did not buy a kingship.  Maybe he recovers more resources from his lands?  He inherently has more gathering power than players who did not buy a kingship.  So on and so forth, ad nauseum.
    Post edited by MadFrenchie on

    image
  • NegativeJoeNegativeJoe hluboka nad vltavouMember UncommonPosts: 208
      In this game, some people will be going for their own Kingdoms, sure, but not everyone obviously.  Not everyone gets to be the hero or the king.
    exactly.  just the ones that give them thousands of dollars will.

      you really don't see an issue with the viability of any population at all in this game?

    ::::26:: ::::26:: ::::26::

  • TermiiTermii Member CommonPosts: 6
    edited March 11

      In this game, some people will be going for their own Kingdoms, sure, but not everyone obviously.  Not everyone gets to be the hero or the king.
    exactly.  just the ones that give them thousands of dollars will. 

      you really don't see an issue with the viability of any population at all in this game?

    Thats not true. There are many things in CoE you can do, become a Hero, Crafter, Noble, Dungeonlord etc. You can also buy many things with $$$ (noble titles, land, stuff to advance your settlements with). BUT you can not buy any character advancements(no xp potions, no skills, no achievements, no buffs of any sort)

    Furthermore, king may be a buyable title, but is still below Emperor(the person who unifies the whole continent)=highest noble titles possible. 

    Last but not least, king is not as desireable as most think. As a king, you are deeply routed in the Story. Therefore if you die once, you lose 2 months of gametime (~5€ and time to get storypoints). A normal person loses 2 days of gametime per death (~0,15€). If you can not live long enough to farm Story Points, you wont be able to overtake your noble heir to be the next king. This means, a king can not be a Hero/adventure/soldier if he wants to keep his title.

    A king may have ingame wealth, but he has to manage his kingdom for roughly 20hrs/week, too.
    Post edited by Termii on
Sign In or Register to comment.