Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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]."
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.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
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"
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]."
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.
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.
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.
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-formationand, hearsay apart, there's no evidence to support it.
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.
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.
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-formationand, hearsay apart, there's no evidence to support it.
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.
...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.
...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.
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!
----------------------------------- Life is too short to play bad games.
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!"
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.
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.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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.
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.
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
Comments
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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!
-----------------------------------
Life is too short to play bad games.
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!"
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.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
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
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.
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