Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

One way AoC in-game token?

HansrutgerHansrutger Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
Hi!

For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    The point of the cash shop is to be a revenue stream fo Intrepid.
  • XraelXrael Member
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    Hi!

    For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Hell no. Why should players that have a lot of money be able to get ingame gold just because they can pay for it? That's P2W.

    Also no, the WoW token has caused a ton of issues. It cuts down the costs for botting, gold selling and multiboxing because it makes it so that you can pay for subscription time with in game gold.

    The monetization system as it stands right now, is the right choice imo.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.

    And probably has legal reprocussions in regards to parlor games.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    noaani wrote: »
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.

    And probably has legal reprocussions in regards to parlor games.

    Ooh now there's a grey area if ever I saw one.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • HansrutgerHansrutger Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    Hi!

    For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Hell no. Why should players that have a lot of money be able to get ingame gold just because they can pay for it? That's P2W.

    That wasn't the discussion point.
  • WMC51WMC51 Member
    I think the in game token systems come around when you throw in the towel against fold farmers or you are in desperate need of cash flow.

    I dont think its something most devs want from the start.

    It helps me since my wife could farm to pay for her account but it does open up gold farmer abuse as they can use gold to pay for their bots and sell the leftover gold.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    noaani wrote: »
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.

    And probably has legal reprocussions in regards to parlor games.

    Ooh now there's a grey area if ever I saw one.

    Indeed.

    The curious side of me kind of wants to see what would happen, but since I know the EU would likely come down hard on what ever developer attempted to do this, the spiteful side of me wants Blizzard to be the one that tries it.
  • Hansrutger wrote: »
    Hi!

    For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Hell no. Why should players that have a lot of money be able to get ingame gold just because they can pay for it? That's P2W.

    Also no, the WoW token has caused a ton of issues. It cuts down the costs for botting, gold selling and multiboxing because it makes it so that you can pay for subscription time with in game gold.

    The monetization system as it stands right now, is the right choice imo.

    I don't think you read his post, buddy. Take some time to go back and read it :).
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    noaani wrote: »
    noaani wrote: »
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.

    And probably has legal reprocussions in regards to parlor games.

    Ooh now there's a grey area if ever I saw one.

    Indeed.

    The curious side of me kind of wants to see what would happen, but since I know the EU would likely come down hard on what ever developer attempted to do this, the spiteful side of me wants Blizzard to be the one that tries it.

    Haha I don't think even Blizzard are stupid enough to try that.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • TheLegend27TheLegend27 Member
    edited July 2020
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Sounds interesting, but imo, it would destroy the "novelty" of varying node-to-node economy. That being: all economies across all servers in the game will be at risk of flat-lining (becoming all the same). Purely because there's this one, very precious, economical constant that they all may follow (hopefully I'm making sense). We even see it in real life lol.

    I think Steven would be against it. Nevertheless, its certainly not P2W :) so who knows.
  • So your idea is to be able to buy Embers with in-game gold?

    I'm too tired to think of anything, but I don't see how it would be p2w as well.

    This is actually one of the least terrible ideas from the past 2-3 weeks - it's almost good even. But at the end of the day, it's Steveo's decision. I'd be fine with or without it.
  • LockedOutLockedOut Member
    edited July 2020
    The day they add a system to buy gold with real life money is the day I stop playing.
  • LockedOut wrote: »
    The day they add a system to buy gold with real life money is the day I stop playing.

    Doesn't OP mean the opposite though? Buying cash shop currency with gold?
  • LockedOut wrote: »
    The day they add they add a system to buy gold with real life money is the day I stop playing.
    phdmonster wrote: »
    LockedOut wrote: »
    The day they add a system to buy gold with real life money is the day I stop playing.

    Doesn't OP mean the opposite though? Buying cash shop currency with gold?

    Yeah, you're right. I misread the OP; my b.

    I've seen some people say that the cash shop items will be available in game as well, but with different color schemes.
  • HansrutgerHansrutger Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Ye I can definitively see this as an encouragement for bots like you guys pointed out. At the same time some of my friends in WoW paid their game time with ingame gold due to being in less fortunate economic countries. But I think that if they will offer some kind of multi-month discount it will be nice, for instance 3 months for 40 USD instead of 45 USD, or whatever they come up with.

    I guess it does more harm than good. At same time we will not really be able to stop bots any easier either way, just less encouragement.
  • WiplasherWiplasher Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty
    edited July 2020
    This would increase the number of bots while decreasing the revenue stream for intrepid. It wont happen... This is coming from someone who paid for 10 accounts at once with in game currency too.
  • XraelXrael Member
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    Hi!

    For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Hell no. Why should players that have a lot of money be able to get ingame gold just because they can pay for it? That's P2W.

    Also no, the WoW token has caused a ton of issues. It cuts down the costs for botting, gold selling and multiboxing because it makes it so that you can pay for subscription time with in game gold.

    The monetization system as it stands right now, is the right choice imo.

    I don't think you read his post, buddy. Take some time to go back and read it :).

    I am pretty sure I read it right. He asked me what I thought about getting in game gold with in real life money. Hell no.
  • HansrutgerHansrutger Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    Hi!

    For the sake of debate and discussion, what's your guy's take on a token that only works one way and not two ways? Similar to WoW Token, you can sell in-game gold to get BNet currency and you can buy in-game gold with in real life money.

    But instead of having it being two ways, this would only be one way where you can only buy let's say embers or AoC shop currency with in-game gold (essentially paying your subscription with it). What do you guys think? Personally I'm a bit torn as it still brings some bad things with it.

    Hell no. Why should players that have a lot of money be able to get ingame gold just because they can pay for it? That's P2W.

    Also no, the WoW token has caused a ton of issues. It cuts down the costs for botting, gold selling and multiboxing because it makes it so that you can pay for subscription time with in game gold.

    The monetization system as it stands right now, is the right choice imo.

    I don't think you read his post, buddy. Take some time to go back and read it :).

    I am pretty sure I read it right. He asked me what I thought about getting in game gold with in real life money. Hell no.

    Wrong, read again.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    noaani wrote: »
    noaani wrote: »
    On the one hand, tying the in-game currency to real world currency can help prevent hyper-inflation in the game by altering the exchange rate. On the other hand, such a system encourages botting and gold farming.

    And probably has legal reprocussions in regards to parlor games.

    Ooh now there's a grey area if ever I saw one.

    Indeed.

    The curious side of me kind of wants to see what would happen, but since I know the EU would likely come down hard on what ever developer attempted to do this, the spiteful side of me wants Blizzard to be the one that tries it.

    Haha I don't think even Blizzard are stupid enough to try that.

    If only their developers were half as good at their job as their lawyers are...
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    The reasoning for a cosmetic only cash shop being given by Intrepid is for those who are more casual players a chance to support the game through their purchases instead of having to work for hours in game for equivalent cosmetics. If you introduce an in game currency for cosmetic shop currency this negates the whole point they have been trying to justify the cosmetic store with. They have been working since inception to place systems, measurements, and reporting tools into their game to decrease RMT, gold selling, and botting. Why they would take a step to make those actions more attractive makes no sense.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • NetoryNetory Member
    edited July 2020
    Player A spends 10 gold in the cash shop. Player B spends 10$ in the cash shop.
    B now has 10 more gold than A.

    Any real money purchase is going to be a P2W purchase if using gold is an alternative.
    0sGgchB.png
  • NetoryNetory Member
    I guess maaaybe they could introduce a separate non-tradeable type of in-game earnable currency that serves the singular purpose of purchasing the monthly subscription or cash shop items, but even then, that might imply a time investment by the player to earn said currency as opposed to someone who could just pay for it with real money and use their game time more profitably therefore buying them an advantage.

    This magic currency would have to be non-farmable and available to anyone in equal amount regardless of what aspect of the game they spend their time with the most, but the only way that I can think of doing this is through login rewards. So in that case, if a player logs in regularly for 2 - 3 months they can earn enough for a 1 month subscription, which would help with player retention and as a result might even be more profitable in the long run for the developers.
    0sGgchB.png
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    They have given a method for people to reduce or eliminate their sub fees and get stuff from the shop through the referral system. They have no reason to introduce login rewards, which have also been ruled out. Just come to Jesus with the fact that you are going to pay and the shenanigans from EVE Plex or WoWToken are not going to happen.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • FrostduckFrostduck Member
    edited July 2020
    In an economy driven games any ability to spend real money to gain ingame currency is rmt and pay to win.

    What did you trade does not matter. Tokens cosmetics anything like that, once tradeable = rmt.

    Think about it that way, if a guild wants to prepare a siege they need resources, thats a huge factor in balancing entire world. But what if they just throw money at the system and instantly get resources instead of taking time to aquire them? Entire system falls apart

    Literally that alone is enough to ruin whole game for most people
  • HansrutgerHansrutger Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Frostduck wrote: »
    In an economy driven games any ability to spend real money to gain ingame currency is rmt and pay to win.

    What did you trade does not matter. Tokens cosmetics anything like that, once tradeable = rmt.

    Think about it that way, if a guild wants to prepare a siege they need resources, thats a huge factor in balancing entire world. But what if they just throw money at the system and instantly get resources instead of taking time to aquire them? Entire system falls apart

    Literally that alone is enough to ruin whole game for most people

    That's all nice and all, but what about the thing I wanted discussed? One way token, not two ways.
  • It would likely result in less income for intrepid and therefore the game as a whole would suffer in some way.

    If we could all choose what the game would cost, then the majority would vote: no box cost, no cash shop, no sub fee, and then we wouldn't have a game at all.

    Income from the cosmetic only cash shop and sub fees will go to maintain and update the game which is good for everyone. I personally don't buy cosmetics, but I love the trade off that some people in the world will look cooler than me but as a result there's more cash flow to staff GMs, answer support tickets and create timely DLCs.
  • FrostduckFrostduck Member
    edited July 2020
    Hansrutger wrote: »
    Frostduck wrote: »
    In an economy driven games any ability to spend real money to gain ingame currency is rmt and pay to win.

    What did you trade does not matter. Tokens cosmetics anything like that, once tradeable = rmt.

    Think about it that way, if a guild wants to prepare a siege they need resources, thats a huge factor in balancing entire world. But what if they just throw money at the system and instantly get resources instead of taking time to aquire them? Entire system falls apart

    Literally that alone is enough to ruin whole game for most people

    That's all nice and all, but what about the thing I wanted discussed? One way token, not two ways.

    It's still two way token, because you can simply get people mtx by gifting them gold. And you can get gold by abusing impossible to completely eliminate RMT. With multiboxing being easily allowable by AoC devs, it would sooner or later devolve into a system where real money has effect on gameplay. And while it sucks to design a game around illegal practices, u have no other option if you want the game to work.

    And on the same note, if you want to act like this would not be a problem. which is fair it might not be, the subscription exists mostly as barrier of entry for bots/gold sellers. If bots can use gold to keep on subscribing,t hat barrier of entry is very compromised.

    EDIT: Also now that i think about it, even if none of these matterd, it would create an unpredictable currency sink that has no gameplay effect which could hurt economy since we heard that gold is not going to be all that common. Also new items in the shop, if gold was also able to buy you other things than token, just embers as currency, would swing market prices which is never good.
Sign In or Register to comment.