@Dreoh hahahaha. My arguments are weak but you are telling me how to play my game? Sorry buddy but you are not going to see my emu. It's amazing even speaking about the strength of an argument when you have already LOST that argument. The cosmetic shop is not going anywhere and the current system is very accommodating compared to other mmos. Intrepid has done a great job of creating exactly what makes sense for a game to have longevity over others.
Imagine a world where a consumer gets to tell a business....you don't get to sell those things because you don't NEED the income. You get more than enough income to give me what I want from that monthly subscription fee. Talk about a weak and pathetic argument. This has to be one of the worst comments I have read on these forums.
It's perfectly acceptable to discredit feelings when those feelings are just plain dumb and over the top. The cosmetics that you can buy ARE the visual and immersive fidelity of the game. Think of it like that and you won't have a brain aneurism whenever you see my toad mount.
You're right, I'm discrediting your feelings right now.
Your forum avatar is very fitting.
Oh lol look, more ad hominem
Doesn't seem like I should expect any good arguments from you so this will be my last response to your childishness
0
Options
CypherMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For people who care about visuals I think the problem is that most of the items you can buy from a MMORPG cash shops use to look better than most of the items you can get ingame.
If in Ashes they care about this issue they won't make cash shop mounts look better than the rare mounts you can earn ingame so we are going to be fine.
It has already been stated that the non cash shop items will be equitable to the cash shop items in terms of appearance. And in some cases, non cash shop items may look even better, in regards to legendaries.
3
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For people who care about visuals I think the problem is that most of the items you can buy from a MMORPG cash shops use to look better than most of the items you can get ingame.
If in Ashes they care about this issue they won't make cash shop mounts look better than the rare mounts you can earn ingame so we are going to be fine.
It has already been stated that the non cash shop items will be equitable to the cash shop items in terms of appearance. And in some cases, non cash shop items may look even better, in regards to legendaries.
Pretty much this
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Ashes of creation has a lot of things right that mmos have been missing for a long time. But things like a cash shop where you buy ingame items is not it. I just wish AoC would have been that mmo that really put up a big middle finger to nowadays mainstream trash mmos, but i guess this is not that game, not this mmo.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well, that's the problem with being a massively multiplayer game...
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ashes of creation has a lot of things right that mmos have been missing for a long time. But things like a cash shop where you buy ingame items is not it. I just wish AoC would have been that mmo that really put up a big middle finger to nowadays mainstream trash mmos, but i guess this is not that game, not this mmo.
Sadly I don't see this changing in the gaming world anytime soon
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Cosmetics only cash shop is the lesser evil. If it has to be something I'd rather it be that than outright gear being sold, or gold, or fancy potions, or whatever else.
6
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Cosmetics only cash shop is the lesser evil. If it has to be something I'd rather it be that than outright gear being sold, or gold, or fancy potions, or whatever else.
Thats my belief as well. In a day and age with pay to win and loot boxes I'm just happy with skins I can buy
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Ashes of creation has a lot of things right that mmos have been missing for a long time. But things like a cash shop where you buy ingame items is not it. I just wish AoC would have been that mmo that really put up a big middle finger to nowadays mainstream trash mmos, but i guess this is not that game, not this mmo.
Sure, that's the honorable way out, @Orym ... but without a cash shop how do you propose Ashes fund itself for future expansions and content (without having a box cost)?
I'm hoping you don't say "just the monthly sub" like the OP is suggesting. That isn't good logic.
1
Options
CambiguousMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
As long as they don't start selling inventory expansions and other pay to win/pay for convenience bullshit, I will gladly take a cosmetic cash shop.
I just got done watching one of Asmongold's newest videos where he argues with/rants to Blizzard worshippers about why the new cash shop for Classic WoW is a mistake and a disappointment.
I know that many of us who peruse these forums in addition to myself feel the same way he does. We know even though it's "just cosmetics" it still interferes with the value of the game and things in it. I was personally extremely disheartened when I heard Steven confirm a cosmetic cash shop. I already think these monthly cosmetics are abhorrent enough as it is.
These are your feelings; Value is relative, and other players value other things. Yours truly personally feels that it's great that we can customize our appearances with cash shop items.
It's also disappointing because Steven says the cash shop is to help with funding more content and expansions, however we already have a monthly subscription fee.
This isn't disappointing, to me, since a lot of games just monetize the hell out of the ENTIRE GAME; The more income AoC can have without completely monetizing the game, the BETTER!
On top of that, I already have little interest in animal husbandry and mount breeding because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
What's the point in a breeding system if you can just magically make any end result into something preset?
Since visuals are a big deal (I know some people who would say "it's just cosmetics" would say otherwise) that mount creature essentially just becomes whatever creature the skin is for all intents and purposes.
No one who comes across you is going to know what special mount you have underneath, they'll just see the skin, and a skin that devalues the rest of the visuals of all other mounts.
If you want other players to see what mount you're actually riding, why not turn off the appearance one? Did someone tell you that if you bought an appearance mount skin that it was mandatory to always use it?
2
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
I took the time to read through it, and have not seen any points on the anti-cash shop side that have moved me. With 70 new posts in this thread since the last time I looked at it I was hoping to see something new and exciting on the anti-cash shop side of the argument. Sadly it is the same points I have seen over the years.
It has not been mentioned in this thread, but I think part of the problem is that people listen to people like Asmongold or Jimquisition, and lose the ability to think for themselves. I am not saying that anti-cash shop person on this forum can't think for themselves, but I am saying I have heard all of these arguments from Asmongold and Jimquisition in the past. I feel like with the amount of energy people put into debating this topic we would have more good ideas of why cash shops are bad beyond greed, immersion, and reward systems.
So far greed has not been shown by intrepid. When it is shown I will call it for what it is.
Immersion as a priority is extremely debatable. I base this on what the DEVs have shown us not what they have said. Every chance they get we see something that is more epic than realistic. I feel like the game will be extremely high fantasy by the time we see release. Which is fine. That is what they seem to want.
Visual rewards have been addressed by the DEVs. They say endgame earnable will look better than cash shop cosmetics. Also the cash shop cosmetics are not dyable or mixable, making them worst in every way IMO. FFXIV has pulled this off. Look at Ultimate weapons for an example.
I just want to see some stronger arguments come for the anti-shop side.
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
As per the currently confirmed information, that is factually incorrect. As I have stated in a previous post:
You can't for instance put a corgi skin on a non dog base mount. You can't use a glowy spacey turtle skin, on a non turtle mount etc.
To take the Emu example: most of the cosmetic flavor will be in the look of said Emu. For instance, it may be red or yellow instead of its natural base color.
You don't have to worry about someone applying the skin of something completely unrelated to the base mount.
This way you will always know what type of mount they have, and whether it's a regular mount or a pack mule etc. The aesthetics might be slightly different and the saddles more ornate etc, but the creature type and species will remain unchanged.
Skins are only be able to be applied to things that have already been earned, crafted or found within Ashes of Creation.
Mount skins require a specific type of mount to have been achieved in-game.
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
As per the currently confirmed information, that is factually incorrect. As I have stated in a previous post:
You can't for instance put a corgi skin on a non dog base mount. You can't use a glowy spacey turtle skin, on a non turtle mount etc.
To take the Emu example: most of the cosmetic flavor will be in the look of said Emu. For instance, it may be red or yellow instead of its natural base color.
You don't have to worry about someone applying the skin of something completely unrelated to the base mount.
This way you will always know what type of mount they have, and whether it's a regular mount or a pack mule etc. The aesthetics might be slightly different and the saddles more ornate etc, but the creature type and species will remain unchanged.
Skins are only be able to be applied to things that have already been earned, crafted or found within Ashes of Creation.
Mount skins require a specific type of mount to have been achieved in-game.
Oh quite interesting information, i thought the skin mounts restrictions would only be Tier Based(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying) and not Species Based(Except aquatic), as species wasn't cited.
Taking in consideration this generalizing example on the mounts section of the wiki:
For example, the Ramstrider skin will only be applicable to the class of land mounts (tier 1), and the Nighthunter Gryphon skin is only applicable to the class of royal mounts (tier 3).
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
As per the currently confirmed information, that is factually incorrect. As I have stated in a previous post:
You can't for instance put a corgi skin on a non dog base mount. You can't use a glowy spacey turtle skin, on a non turtle mount etc.
To take the Emu example: most of the cosmetic flavor will be in the look of said Emu. For instance, it may be red or yellow instead of its natural base color.
You don't have to worry about someone applying the skin of something completely unrelated to the base mount.
This way you will always know what type of mount they have, and whether it's a regular mount or a pack mule etc. The aesthetics might be slightly different and the saddles more ornate etc, but the creature type and species will remain unchanged.
Skins are only be able to be applied to things that have already been earned, crafted or found within Ashes of Creation.
Mount skins require a specific type of mount to have been achieved in-game.
Oh quite interesting information, i thought the skin mounts restrictions would only be Tier Based(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying) and not Species Based, as species wasn't cited.
Taking in consideration this generalizing example on the mounts section of the wiki:
For example, the Ramstrider skin will only be applicable to the class of land mounts (tier 1), and the Nighthunter Gryphon skin is only applicable to the class of royal mounts (tier 3).
Certainly seems like a bit of a conflicting information. Seeing as though the video I linked is from a more recent stream, should we assume that's the one with the more accurate information?
I Believe the only problem skins and cosmetics of any kind can cause is possible hidding Stats/Power/Tier
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
This will indicate the type of gear (cloth, leather, plate) that they are predominantly wearing.
The border will indicate the level and quality of the tier set
This also indicates if the gear is enchanted.
The developers believe that inspecting gear to obtain an exact equipment list or gear score may lead to "unwelcome behavior".
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
As per the currently confirmed information, that is factually incorrect. As I have stated in a previous post:
You can't for instance put a corgi skin on a non dog base mount. You can't use a glowy spacey turtle skin, on a non turtle mount etc.
To take the Emu example: most of the cosmetic flavor will be in the look of said Emu. For instance, it may be red or yellow instead of its natural base color.
You don't have to worry about someone applying the skin of something completely unrelated to the base mount.
This way you will always know what type of mount they have, and whether it's a regular mount or a pack mule etc. The aesthetics might be slightly different and the saddles more ornate etc, but the creature type and species will remain unchanged.
Skins are only be able to be applied to things that have already been earned, crafted or found within Ashes of Creation.
Mount skins require a specific type of mount to have been achieved in-game.
Oh quite interesting information, i thought the skin mounts restrictions would only be Tier Based(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying) and not Species Based, as species wasn't cited.
Taking in consideration this generalizing example on the mounts section of the wiki:
For example, the Ramstrider skin will only be applicable to the class of land mounts (tier 1), and the Nighthunter Gryphon skin is only applicable to the class of royal mounts (tier 3).
Certainly seems like a bit of a conflicting information. Seeing as though the video I linked is from a more recent stream, should we assume that's the one with the more accurate information?
Maybe? Possible?
But his phrase in the video reference you linked is quite vague:
"Mount skins do require yes there to be specific type of mount achieved"
Its unsure if he is refering to the type of tiers(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying or aquatic) like on previous references or to type of species.
As long as the cash shop skins are NOT COMPLETELY UNIQUE to the point where you can't find anything similar to them in game, then I can be content with it. It's when cash shop items stand out in uniqueness to in-game achievable is what I cannot support.
And that is exactly WoW's issue. Nothing in the shop is remotely achievable in game. And it's one reason in a laundry list of reasons for why I quit the game.
I really hope Intrepid only offer color/dye options and nothing else that makes them stand out from in-game achievables. This goes for ALL types of skins; mounts/gear/caravans/freeholds etc
I will not support anything more.
Then you are out of luck. No variants/reskin/recolor of the pack cosmetics/costumes can be found as achievable itwm in game
I just got done watching one of Asmongold's newest videos where he argues with/rants to Blizzard worshippers about why the new cash shop for Classic WoW is a mistake and a disappointment.
I know that many of us who peruse these forums in addition to myself feel the same way he does. We know even though it's "just cosmetics" it still interferes with the value of the game and things in it. I was personally extremely disheartened when I heard Steven confirm a cosmetic cash shop. I already think these monthly cosmetics are abhorrent enough as it is.
These are your feelings; Value is relative, and other players value other things. Yours truly personally feels that it's great that we can customize our appearances with cash shop items.
It's also disappointing because Steven says the cash shop is to help with funding more content and expansions, however we already have a monthly subscription fee.
This isn't disappointing, to me, since a lot of games just monetize the hell out of the ENTIRE GAME; The more income AoC can have without completely monetizing the game, the BETTER!
On top of that, I already have little interest in animal husbandry and mount breeding because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
What's the point in a breeding system if you can just magically make any end result into something preset?
Since visuals are a big deal (I know some people who would say "it's just cosmetics" would say otherwise) that mount creature essentially just becomes whatever creature the skin is for all intents and purposes.
No one who comes across you is going to know what special mount you have underneath, they'll just see the skin, and a skin that devalues the rest of the visuals of all other mounts.
If you want other players to see what mount you're actually riding, why not turn off the appearance one? Did someone tell you that if you bought an appearance mount skin that it was mandatory to always use it?
Please read the rest of the thread
We've reached the point where new people are coming in and not reading through the responses and are the rehashing points and arguments already made and followed through
I took the time to read through it, and have not seen any points on the anti-cash shop side that have moved me. With 70 new posts in this thread since the last time I looked at it I was hoping to see something new and exciting on the anti-cash shop side of the argument. Sadly it is the same points I have seen over the years.
It has not been mentioned in this thread, but I think part of the problem is that people listen to people like Asmongold or Jimquisition, and lose the ability to think for themselves. I am not saying that anti-cash shop person on this forum can't think for themselves, but I am saying I have heard all of these arguments from Asmongold and Jimquisition in the past. I feel like with the amount of energy people put into debating this topic we would have more good ideas of why cash shops are bad beyond greed, immersion, and reward systems.
So far greed has not been shown by intrepid. When it is shown I will call it for what it is.
Immersion as a priority is extremely debatable. I base this on what the DEVs have shown us not what they have said. Every chance they get we see something that is more epic than realistic. I feel like the game will be extremely high fantasy by the time we see release. Which is fine. That is what they seem to want.
Visual rewards have been addressed by the DEVs. They say endgame earnable will look better than cash shop cosmetics. Also the cash shop cosmetics are not dyable or mixable, making them worst in every way IMO. FFXIV has pulled this off. Look at Ultimate weapons for an example.
I just want to see some stronger arguments come for the anti-shop side.
Let me ask you, are you pro shop or just pro intrepid revenue (more supposed funds for development)?
dont feel like catching up on the convo so I'm just going to reply to the OP
Going off of what Asmongold said in the video, you have to judge the cash shop stuff based off of its effect on the game. In WoW, the cash shop 1) is unnecessary monetization as they also have a box-cost and a subscription and 2) makes the game worse because it devalues in-game achievable cosmetics.
AoC will not utilize a box-cost, so the monetization is more understandable. They've also said multiple times that the in-game achievable stuff will be just as good, if not better than the cash-shop appearances, though we have yet to see if that's true.
WoW is not AoC. while the cash shop is strictly bad in WoW, it will likely be different in AoC. Honestly, I trust steven & co to keep it at a good level.
dont feel like catching up on the convo so I'm just going to reply to the OP
Going off of what Asmongold said in the video, you have to judge the cash shop stuff based off of its effect on the game. In WoW, the cash shop 1) is unnecessary monetization as they also have a box-cost and a subscription and 2) makes the game worse because it devalues in-game achievable cosmetics.
AoC will not utilize a box-cost, so the monetization is more understandable. They've also said multiple times that the in-game achievable stuff will be just as good, if not better than the cash-shop appearances, though we have yet to see if that's true.
WoW is not AoC. while the cash shop is strictly bad in WoW, it will likely be different in AoC. Honestly, I trust steven & co to keep it at a good level.
You're just rehashing arguments we already went over by not reading through the thread
I just got done watching one of Asmongold's newest videos where he argues with/rants to Blizzard worshippers about why the new cash shop for Classic WoW is a mistake and a disappointment.
I know that many of us who peruse these forums in addition to myself feel the same way he does. We know even though it's "just cosmetics" it still interferes with the value of the game and things in it. I was personally extremely disheartened when I heard Steven confirm a cosmetic cash shop. I already think these monthly cosmetics are abhorrent enough as it is.
These are your feelings; Value is relative, and other players value other things. Yours truly personally feels that it's great that we can customize our appearances with cash shop items.
It's also disappointing because Steven says the cash shop is to help with funding more content and expansions, however we already have a monthly subscription fee.
This isn't disappointing, to me, since a lot of games just monetize the hell out of the ENTIRE GAME; The more income AoC can have without completely monetizing the game, the BETTER!
On top of that, I already have little interest in animal husbandry and mount breeding because you can apparently just replace any mount (of the same tier) with a cosmetic skin.
What's the point in a breeding system if you can just magically make any end result into something preset?
Since visuals are a big deal (I know some people who would say "it's just cosmetics" would say otherwise) that mount creature essentially just becomes whatever creature the skin is for all intents and purposes.
No one who comes across you is going to know what special mount you have underneath, they'll just see the skin, and a skin that devalues the rest of the visuals of all other mounts.
If you want other players to see what mount you're actually riding, why not turn off the appearance one? Did someone tell you that if you bought an appearance mount skin that it was mandatory to always use it?
Please read the rest of the thread
We've reached the point where new people are coming in and not reading through the responses and are the rehashing points and arguments already made and followed through
Welcome to what people that have been here for a while see in literally every thread - this one included.
Let me ask you, are you pro shop or just pro intrepid revenue (more supposed funds for development)?
Or are you just anti-anti-shop ?
I am pro creator freedom.
To me the funds don't just go to development. They are there so when Microsoft shows up on Intrepid's doorstep offering $2.5 billion(Minecraft). Steven can afford to slam the door in Microsoft's face. That decision seems like it would be harder to make in worn out sandals vs gold plated sandals.
Because I don't like to deal in absolutes. Who is running the cash shop and how they are doing it is important to me. Which is why I mostly approve of POE and Ashes cash shops whilst denouncing things like Genshin Impact or ArcheAge. WOW and FFXIV walk a fine line.
Would I pay a $30 a month sub to have a game with no cash shop? Yes, I would pay up to 50$ a month. Would the amount of other people required to also do that pay the same? I highly doubt it. Cash shops are here to stay. Cosmetic only is unfortunately our best case scenario. I could go on talking about inflation and why that 15$ sub fee does not make as much since in 2021 as it did in the early 00s. I have said it all before in other threads like this. I just want Intrepid to be able to afford to stay in control of their own creation. Low profits have ruined a lot of games for me.
Let me ask you, are you pro shop or just pro intrepid revenue (more supposed funds for development)?
Or are you just anti-anti-shop ?
I am pro creator freedom.
To me the funds don't just go to development. They are there so when Microsoft shows up on Intrepid's doorstep offering $2.5 billion(Minecraft). Steven can afford to slam the door in Microsoft's face. That decision seems like it would be harder to make in worn out sandals vs gold plated sandals.
Because I don't like to deal in absolutes. Who is running the cash shop and how they are doing it is important to me. Which is why I mostly approve of POE and Ashes cash shops whilst denouncing things like Genshin Impact or ArcheAge. WOW and FFXIV walk a fine line.
Would I pay a $30 a month sub to have a game with no cash shop? Yes, I would pay up to 50$ a month. Would the amount of other people required to also do that pay the same? I highly doubt it. Cash shops are here to stay. Cosmetic only is unfortunately our best case scenario. I could go on talking about inflation and why that 15$ sub fee does not make as much since in 2021 as it did in the early 00s. I have said it all before in other threads like this. I just want Intrepid to be able to afford to stay in control of their own creation. Low profits have ruined a lot of games for me.
Right, so you're not pro-shop
In an ideal scenario where none of that was an issue, would you prefer the game with or without a cosmetic shop?
I ask this because Steven has talked about how there are players who want the cash shop and to buy skins and that's one of the major reasons he is implementing it.
Comments
They make money from views, this means their opinion is largely based on what they think will get the most views.
Watching streamers to get good opinion or solid fact about an MMO is like getting your news from The Onion.
Oh lol look, more ad hominem
Doesn't seem like I should expect any good arguments from you so this will be my last response to your childishness
It has already been stated that the non cash shop items will be equitable to the cash shop items in terms of appearance. And in some cases, non cash shop items may look even better, in regards to legendaries.
Pretty much this
Can't please all of the people all of the time.
Sadly I don't see this changing in the gaming world anytime soon
Thats my belief as well. In a day and age with pay to win and loot boxes I'm just happy with skins I can buy
Sure, that's the honorable way out, @Orym ... but without a cash shop how do you propose Ashes fund itself for future expansions and content (without having a box cost)?
I'm hoping you don't say "just the monthly sub" like the OP is suggesting. That isn't good logic.
As long as they don't start selling inventory expansions and other pay to win/pay for convenience bullshit, I will gladly take a cosmetic cash shop.
Someone you otter know.
These are your feelings; Value is relative, and other players value other things. Yours truly personally feels that it's great that we can customize our appearances with cash shop items.
This isn't disappointing, to me, since a lot of games just monetize the hell out of the ENTIRE GAME; The more income AoC can have without completely monetizing the game, the BETTER!
If you want other players to see what mount you're actually riding, why not turn off the appearance one? Did someone tell you that if you bought an appearance mount skin that it was mandatory to always use it?
I missed your gifs ^^
or any other type of visual information.
On characters the easiest and most used way to circumvent this issue is by providing important information that could be visually acquired, through other means such icons below the character target: Character level, Character Class, Type of weapon and Type of Armor, Tier of weapon and Tier of armor.
In the case of Mounts, if the only difference between 2 different mounts of the same tier was visual, then yes i would agree that skin/cosmetic mounts would probably straight up kill the animal husbandry profession.
But mounts will have varied speeds and most likely different resistances, defensive abilities, skills, charge abilities, and attacks as can be found in the wiki. And there is also Combat Pets.
So we can assume each species of mounts will have its peculiarities in those differences and hybrids created through animal husbandry will have combinations of those differences of the species.
If a icon referent to the species(or combination of species) of the mounts is provided for you to have an alternative way to know what is under the skin/costume, i will not find mounts skins/costumes a problem and believe it will not be a problem for animal husbandry profession at all.
Aren't we all sinners?
Threat assessment: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvP#Threat_assessment
Players will have a buff on their nameplate that indicates the gear set they are wearing. Other players will be able to see this buff by targeting that player at a distance.
When you see a player approaching you and they're wearing a transmog you know you don't know if that person is a high damage mitigation against physical damage or against magical damage and essentially the way we overcome that is through you being able to target a player at a distance and they will have a buff that's present on them that you will see, which indicates that essentially the piece set that they are wearing. It is important for players to be able to ascertain from a threat assessment standpoint you know what they're going up against if they're actively checking that and that will be available.– Steven Sharif
Being by default able to see a person's "gear score" / equipment list... may cause unwelcome behavior.
I took the time to read through it, and have not seen any points on the anti-cash shop side that have moved me. With 70 new posts in this thread since the last time I looked at it I was hoping to see something new and exciting on the anti-cash shop side of the argument. Sadly it is the same points I have seen over the years.
It has not been mentioned in this thread, but I think part of the problem is that people listen to people like Asmongold or Jimquisition, and lose the ability to think for themselves. I am not saying that anti-cash shop person on this forum can't think for themselves, but I am saying I have heard all of these arguments from Asmongold and Jimquisition in the past. I feel like with the amount of energy people put into debating this topic we would have more good ideas of why cash shops are bad beyond greed, immersion, and reward systems.
So far greed has not been shown by intrepid. When it is shown I will call it for what it is.
Immersion as a priority is extremely debatable. I base this on what the DEVs have shown us not what they have said. Every chance they get we see something that is more epic than realistic. I feel like the game will be extremely high fantasy by the time we see release. Which is fine. That is what they seem to want.
Visual rewards have been addressed by the DEVs. They say endgame earnable will look better than cash shop cosmetics. Also the cash shop cosmetics are not dyable or mixable, making them worst in every way IMO. FFXIV has pulled this off. Look at Ultimate weapons for an example.
I just want to see some stronger arguments come for the anti-shop side.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Yep i know Ashes's threat assessment for players, the thing is we still don't know if we will have this type of information for mounts, as skins may deny your opponent visual information of your type/species of mount.
Aren't we all sinners?
As per the currently confirmed information, that is factually incorrect. As I have stated in a previous post:
You can't for instance put a corgi skin on a non dog base mount. You can't use a glowy spacey turtle skin, on a non turtle mount etc.
To take the Emu example: most of the cosmetic flavor will be in the look of said Emu. For instance, it may be red or yellow instead of its natural base color.
You don't have to worry about someone applying the skin of something completely unrelated to the base mount.
This way you will always know what type of mount they have, and whether it's a regular mount or a pack mule etc. The aesthetics might be slightly different and the saddles more ornate etc, but the creature type and species will remain unchanged.
Skins are only be able to be applied to things that have already been earned, crafted or found within Ashes of Creation.
Mount skins require a specific type of mount to have been achieved in-game.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Skins
They reference this:
Oh quite interesting information, i thought the skin mounts restrictions would only be Tier Based(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying) and not Species Based(Except aquatic), as species wasn't cited.
Taking in consideration this generalizing example on the mounts section of the wiki:
For example, the Ramstrider skin will only be applicable to the class of land mounts (tier 1), and the Nighthunter Gryphon skin is only applicable to the class of royal mounts (tier 3).
and this reference:
Aren't we all sinners?
Certainly seems like a bit of a conflicting information. Seeing as though the video I linked is from a more recent stream, should we assume that's the one with the more accurate information?
Maybe? Possible?
But his phrase in the video reference you linked is quite vague:
"Mount skins do require yes there to be specific type of mount achieved"
Its unsure if he is refering to the type of tiers(T1 ground, T2 gliding and T3 Flying or aquatic) like on previous references or to type of species.
Aren't we all sinners?
Then you are out of luck. No variants/reskin/recolor of the pack cosmetics/costumes can be found as achievable itwm in game
@Hellfar
Please read the rest of the thread
We've reached the point where new people are coming in and not reading through the responses and are the rehashing points and arguments already made and followed through
Let me ask you, are you pro shop or just pro intrepid revenue (more supposed funds for development)?
Or are you just anti-anti-shop ?
Going off of what Asmongold said in the video, you have to judge the cash shop stuff based off of its effect on the game. In WoW, the cash shop 1) is unnecessary monetization as they also have a box-cost and a subscription and 2) makes the game worse because it devalues in-game achievable cosmetics.
AoC will not utilize a box-cost, so the monetization is more understandable. They've also said multiple times that the in-game achievable stuff will be just as good, if not better than the cash-shop appearances, though we have yet to see if that's true.
WoW is not AoC. while the cash shop is strictly bad in WoW, it will likely be different in AoC. Honestly, I trust steven & co to keep it at a good level.
You're just rehashing arguments we already went over by not reading through the thread
I hope lots of people buy from the shop so IS has more funds to create content with.
Welcome to what people that have been here for a while see in literally every thread - this one included.
I am pro creator freedom.
To me the funds don't just go to development. They are there so when Microsoft shows up on Intrepid's doorstep offering $2.5 billion(Minecraft). Steven can afford to slam the door in Microsoft's face. That decision seems like it would be harder to make in worn out sandals vs gold plated sandals.
Because I don't like to deal in absolutes. Who is running the cash shop and how they are doing it is important to me. Which is why I mostly approve of POE and Ashes cash shops whilst denouncing things like Genshin Impact or ArcheAge. WOW and FFXIV walk a fine line.
Would I pay a $30 a month sub to have a game with no cash shop? Yes, I would pay up to 50$ a month. Would the amount of other people required to also do that pay the same? I highly doubt it. Cash shops are here to stay. Cosmetic only is unfortunately our best case scenario. I could go on talking about inflation and why that 15$ sub fee does not make as much since in 2021 as it did in the early 00s. I have said it all before in other threads like this. I just want Intrepid to be able to afford to stay in control of their own creation. Low profits have ruined a lot of games for me.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Right, so you're not pro-shop
In an ideal scenario where none of that was an issue, would you prefer the game with or without a cosmetic shop?
I ask this because Steven has talked about how there are players who want the cash shop and to buy skins and that's one of the major reasons he is implementing it.