It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
They are stonewalling because right now it's their best option.Actually started a post on this related thing:
CIG is taking one ridiculous approach to the requests, they already changed their policy over 2 years ago, yet they kept granting refunds, either they do or do not presently is of little bother to me, the problem is their refusal to clarify their position, and stonewalling the requests for months giving people false hopes.
Again, @MaxBacon you are taking my (perhaps poor) analogy in the context of a vertical progression game.MadFrenchie said:Difference being one is an expenditure of a resource equally given to everyone (everyone gets 24 hours a day), money is not.One open world MMO with PvEvP mixed will never equal to that balance of say a game of chess even without the ability to put up money on the game.Phaserlight said:It's not at all the same; I can only surmise your MMO gameplay experiences have been limited to vertical progression with "pay-to-win" mechanics.
This is completely different from a game with horizontal progression where player skill matters, and you can't buy power with real-life currency.
Discussing where Star Citizen falls along this spectrum is still (hilariously) theory crafting, because we won't really know until they release the game. However, CIG launching campaigns such as a $27k "Legatus" kit have caused some such as YongYea to conclude "stay as far away as humanly possible". I can't help but wonder if he's right, recalling the parable of boiling frogs.
You gave the example of someone paying to promote a pawn to queen, I'll counter that example: Simply by playing more time than you, could have done 3 or 4 turns before you came back to the game again, simply playing for longer than you game me the advantage over you without the having to pay, the end result is the same for you. For several different reasons there is no real balance on this type of open world pvp because people will always be at different stages of progression; to me I'm more the strategy type on a game like this and I don't worry about blaming X or Y either that player(s) earned that ship or bought that ship(s), I worry to strategize and adapt to the situations I end up on.
And exactly why I think guild-play will be a core pillar of SC and will add a lot of more variables to this, I don't think this will be any solo-type of game when its main competitive aspect is to be minded.
It's not at all the same; I can only surmise your MMO gameplay experiences have been limited to vertical progression with "pay-to-win" mechanics.It doesn't matter much, the end result is the same, if you join one MMO after it released for a while where the reality is PvPvE like SC, then you can forget about "keeping up" (like you starting today playing EvE), you should focus on your own gameplay and that's it. This desire to be "full equality to everyone else" in one MMO is just wishful thinking, paying or not paying, when you are in disadvantage you are in disadvantage, it's about playing smartly on a game where balance is risk vs reward, and higher reward adds the competitive risk of PvP, that's how it goes.Phaserlight said:The difference is that you are not allowed to spend $5 in a game of chess to promote a pawn to a queen. I don't resent losing to someone who has spent thousands of hours to study things like the Najdorf defense. I do resent pulling out a strategy like the Najdorf defense and losing to someone who pays $5 to promote a pawn to queen.
Playing in a sandbox against someone who has spent $27,000 on a Legatus fleet is still playing against someone who has spent $27,000 for an advantage. It also goes without saying that the sandbox nature of Star Citizen remains to be seen in detail, if it even ever emerges at all.