VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages.
CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win.
SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me...
CROW3 wrote: » Azherae wrote: » This is a little complicated in some people's perspectives for a related reason so, I'll ask a point for my own edification actually, both to you and @SirChancelot . In a game with no sub, with the capacity to spend $20 (and no more) across 4 different $5 premium 'buffs' to your character (let's assume nothing that feeds DIRECTLY into combat for simplicity), is spending the $5-10-15-20 Pay To Win? I have a problem with games where Bob can spend $800 a month to Sue's $8 and get 100x the chances or rewards, but no problem with games where Bob can spend $20 and Sue can choose to spend $0 and Bob be generally superior to Sue. Playtime is the same, to me. Heh - I’ll always whiteboard with you @Azherae - you know that. 🤪 I’m really not a fan of the whole f2p w/VIP sub thing that Neverwinter, ESO, and a few others do. As a player I’d couch those as subbed games with a limited F2P model (instead of players with monthly subs as P2W). So, that said - in a true F2P model w/a cash shop - if I pay to buff xp gain, power, or any other advantage that allows me to beat another player or progress forward that’s P2W. In your example, it could be those $5 are just cosmetic. Cosmetics aren’t P2W.
Azherae wrote: » This is a little complicated in some people's perspectives for a related reason so, I'll ask a point for my own edification actually, both to you and @SirChancelot . In a game with no sub, with the capacity to spend $20 (and no more) across 4 different $5 premium 'buffs' to your character (let's assume nothing that feeds DIRECTLY into combat for simplicity), is spending the $5-10-15-20 Pay To Win? I have a problem with games where Bob can spend $800 a month to Sue's $8 and get 100x the chances or rewards, but no problem with games where Bob can spend $20 and Sue can choose to spend $0 and Bob be generally superior to Sue. Playtime is the same, to me.
VmanGman wrote: » Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » I feel like you don’t understand the kind of game that AoC is. In almost all MMO's (I defy you to name an exception), when players reach the end point of viable individual progression, they leave the game. Albion Online.
Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » I feel like you don’t understand the kind of game that AoC is. In almost all MMO's (I defy you to name an exception), when players reach the end point of viable individual progression, they leave the game.
VmanGman wrote: » I feel like you don’t understand the kind of game that AoC is.
CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages. You’re aware of what an analogy is, right? And yes, time and experience invested in a game do and need to translate into advantage. Even in the FPS genre, which is all twitch based, a player with 1,000 hours has an experiential advantage over a player with 50 hours.
VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages. You’re aware of what an analogy is, right? And yes, time and experience invested in a game do and need to translate into advantage. Even in the FPS genre, which is all twitch based, a player with 1,000 hours has an experiential advantage over a player with 50 hours. But it’s not a good analogy because real life and video games work based on completely different parameters. Video games are a choice and therefore developers need to create parameters that don’t alienate those with less time (especially when you’re an MMO as big as AoC with 10,000 server capacity). Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept??
Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Noaani wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » I feel like you don’t understand the kind of game that AoC is. In almost all MMO's (I defy you to name an exception), when players reach the end point of viable individual progression, they leave the game. Albion Online. Literally everyone I know that picked up Albion stopped playing because there was nothing left to do. Also, Albion didn't market itself as a PvX game, it is a PvP game primarily. The people left in that game are people that only want PvP, because that is all that is left. Ashes is marketing itself as a PvX game. If there is no progression, those wanting things other than just PvP will leave - making Ashes just PvP. Basically, in order for Ashes to not be just a PvP game - as is the intention - they need that player progression in order to keep people interested in things other than PvP. Without progression, a game like Ashes is just PvP for PvP's sake. That is all Albion was ever supposed to be - but is not all Ashes is supposed to be.
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages. You’re aware of what an analogy is, right? And yes, time and experience invested in a game do and need to translate into advantage. Even in the FPS genre, which is all twitch based, a player with 1,000 hours has an experiential advantage over a player with 50 hours. But it’s not a good analogy because real life and video games work based on completely different parameters. Video games are a choice and therefore developers need to create parameters that don’t alienate those with less time (especially when you’re an MMO as big as AoC with 10,000 server capacity). Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Yeah, around here we only work in REAL numbers, like 'how many times you've actually practiced that combo because of your extra 2 hours a day to practice'. What's that you say? You know how to counter that combo but would need to practice more time than you have so you would like the counter to be easier to execute so that my 2 hours of practice can be invalidated with a correctly timed/mashed button press? (this has been the debate in the FGC for the last... 6 years I think. It's about the same here, may I offer you the wisdom of Sunbro...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSXTZ3Nihs
VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages. You’re aware of what an analogy is, right? And yes, time and experience invested in a game do and need to translate into advantage. Even in the FPS genre, which is all twitch based, a player with 1,000 hours has an experiential advantage over a player with 50 hours. But it’s not a good analogy because real life and video games work based on completely different parameters. Video games are a choice and therefore developers need to create parameters that don’t alienate those with less time (especially when you’re an MMO as big as AoC with 10,000 server capacity). Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Yeah, around here we only work in REAL numbers, like 'how many times you've actually practiced that combo because of your extra 2 hours a day to practice'. What's that you say? You know how to counter that combo but would need to practice more time than you have so you would like the counter to be easier to execute so that my 2 hours of practice can be invalidated with a correctly timed/mashed button press? (this has been the debate in the FGC for the last... 6 years I think. It's about the same here, may I offer you the wisdom of Sunbro...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSXTZ3Nihs You’re bringing in a completely different genre that is purely based on skill in a very restricted match system and nothing else. That does not translate well into MMOs where so many other things are implicated. I have never heard that argument in the MMORPG community because it’s not a thing. Let’s stay on topic.
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » SirChancelot wrote: » Time=money If I win the lottery and don't have to work, and clean my house, or cut my lawn, or do anything else I can pay other people to do. Then I would have way more free time to play and I could be 'better' than you because I have more free time than you... Sounds dangerously close to pay to win to me... No. P2W means I spend money in addition to the sub to gain items or buffs that make me more powerful than other players. If we both pay the same gym membership fee to the same gym and I go everyday and you go once a month, I’m going to be stronger than you. That’s not pay to win. But this isn’t real life. This is a game. And the amount of resources (money or time) that you have in real life shouldn’t translate into insurmountable advantages. You’re aware of what an analogy is, right? And yes, time and experience invested in a game do and need to translate into advantage. Even in the FPS genre, which is all twitch based, a player with 1,000 hours has an experiential advantage over a player with 50 hours. But it’s not a good analogy because real life and video games work based on completely different parameters. Video games are a choice and therefore developers need to create parameters that don’t alienate those with less time (especially when you’re an MMO as big as AoC with 10,000 server capacity). Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Yeah, around here we only work in REAL numbers, like 'how many times you've actually practiced that combo because of your extra 2 hours a day to practice'. What's that you say? You know how to counter that combo but would need to practice more time than you have so you would like the counter to be easier to execute so that my 2 hours of practice can be invalidated with a correctly timed/mashed button press? (this has been the debate in the FGC for the last... 6 years I think. It's about the same here, may I offer you the wisdom of Sunbro...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSXTZ3Nihs You’re bringing in a completely different genre that is purely based on skill in a very restricted match system and nothing else. That does not translate well into MMOs where so many other things are implicated. I have never heard that argument in the MMORPG community because it’s not a thing. Let’s stay on topic. You're creating a situation where that is the argument that would be made. I am not necessarily surprised that you don't see that, but I AM surprised that you misunderstood the point quite as much as you did. In an MMO, the artificial number is higher because I am better than you OR I have more time than you, or both. The purpose of the artificial number is to do what the game system is not usually doing, and 'give me my advantage that I earned by being better than you or having more time than you'. You say you don't want the gear equalized, but the counterargument being made is that the gap you want is too small to represent the thing gear is 'supposed' to represent in MMOs. You say you aren't complaining about levels, or Augments, either. It takes 270 hours to hit max level in this game as of last info... you do know that, right? Casual players have way bigger issues than gear, by that metric. I suppose I can't assume your intention there though since you still haven't given us your definition of Hardcore and Casuals. If you're accepting mine, your point is moot already.
VmanGman wrote: » Edit: I don’t have an exact number for hardcore vs casual. However, like I said, that is something for developers to figure out. The fact is that there is such a thing as a casual player and a hardcore player and that’s commonly understood in any gaming community. I don’t need to define that for my post to make sense.
VmanGman wrote: » Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept??
Azherae wrote: » So does it come down to how the game is advertised or represented in marketing, then?
If a game doesn't tell you that in order to reach 'general content enjoyment' you must play 15h a week on average, and anything below that is effectively their equivalent of 'F2P' tier and you should temper your expectations accordingly, then while obviously time is not part of P2W, would it be 'bad' in your mind for players to be brought into buying the game without being told this?
I can say that I actually DO view it as equivalent here. If a game advertises itself as 'Free to Play' and then I have to spend $15 a month to not be fodder or to get an average level of access to the content, then I've been 'cheated'. Technically LESS cheated than a game that advertises itself as 'fun and engaging' without mentioning the 'effectiveness starts at 60h a month', and then charges me a '$40 box cost'.
Ashes implies that it will offer lots of fun to casuals, but IF (hypothetically entirely) you're only able to participate in the bare minimum of the features due to PvP constantly disrupting it and you don't have time to catch up in gear to compete in this PvP, then I can see how casual players of a particular type will feel cheated. The 'Play to Win' vs 'Pay to Win' terminology isn't important to me here as the intent.
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Edit: I don’t have an exact number for hardcore vs casual. However, like I said, that is something for developers to figure out. The fact is that there is such a thing as a casual player and a hardcore player and that’s commonly understood in any gaming community. I don’t need to define that for my post to make sense. I really should clarify that I'm trying to help you here, at least in the sense of getting to a point where you don't get ignored or stonewalled. You don't need to define it to me, nor to developers, but you DO need to define it to other players who keep, as you put it, misinterpreting your wish or intent. If you said 'Casual is 2h a day and Hardcore is 4h a day and I don't want 2h players to be stomped by 4h players', maybe someone could have a discussion with you instead of assuming. But if someone perceives 'Hardcore' as '8h a day' and Casual as 'plays 2h about 3x a week', you will get the reactions you are getting. Do you want to have a discussion or just complain about how other people don't understand you?
CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Artificial numbers like levels, or skill points, or ability scores? Ok. 🤷♂️ Azherae wrote: » So does it come down to how the game is advertised or represented in marketing, then? I don’t think so, but I’d need to think more about that. If a game doesn't tell you that in order to reach 'general content enjoyment' you must play 15h a week on average, and anything below that is effectively their equivalent of 'F2P' tier and you should temper your expectations accordingly, then while obviously time is not part of P2W, would it be 'bad' in your mind for players to be brought into buying the game without being told this? No. Because enjoyment is entirely subjective. MO2 was really enjoyable in beta, but wasn’t worth paying the monthly sub. That’s my subjective sense of enjoyment value v. price. I’m not awesome at Insurgency: Sandstorm, but I’ve put over a thousand hours into it. Because it really doesn’t get old. I don’t think it would matter to me what their devs said the ‘optimal’ time input would be. As a player I’d figure it out. I can say that I actually DO view it as equivalent here. If a game advertises itself as 'Free to Play' and then I have to spend $15 a month to not be fodder or to get an average level of access to the content, then I've been 'cheated'. Technically LESS cheated than a game that advertises itself as 'fun and engaging' without mentioning the 'effectiveness starts at 60h a month', and then charges me a '$40 box cost'. Interesting perspective, but I don’t agree that they’re equivalent. Ashes implies that it will offer lots of fun to casuals, but IF (hypothetically entirely) you're only able to participate in the bare minimum of the features due to PvP constantly disrupting it and you don't have time to catch up in gear to compete in this PvP, then I can see how casual players of a particular type will feel cheated. The 'Play to Win' vs 'Pay to Win' terminology isn't important to me here as the intent. On average ‘Cheated’ seems strong; but the ‘players of a particular type’ qualifier can be stretched pretty far to fit a lot of reactionary segments. Honestly, with the sheer amount of free content online to review before a purchase, ‘caveat emptor’ is an easy bare-minimum to meet. I give casual players a good deal of credit. I think there’s a higher threshold for growth and learning and gear / level disparity than how Vman characterizes them. And note, Vman isn’t making the argument as a casual player himself. Making this whole thread an awkward proxy argument.
CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Artificial numbers like levels, or skill points, or ability scores? Ok. 🤷♂️
VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Artificial numbers like levels, or skill points, or ability scores? Ok. 🤷♂️ Had you read even just the title of the conversation you would understand that the conversation is about gear. Skill points and ability scores do not seem to be designed to offer quite as much power increase as gear in AoC and they also do not seem to be as exclusive.
Azherae wrote: » Nope, still wrong, because if I'm a hardcore economic player but only average at PvP, with my 'winning personality' here I'm better off spending the benefits of my economics skills on gear that outclasses the gear of the average PvP player so that I can beat them if they attack me, with my own average PvP skills. See how that works? I didn't have time to practice PvP, I was too busy playing the Economy game. Then I needed to buy gear that was good enough to beat people who have the same amount of time to practice PvP as I do, but don't bother with the Economy game. Or what will happen, if you follow, is that people who spend their time in PvP rather than in Economy will always be higher in PvP skill than me, and my gear probably won't help enough. (for the sake of this post, ignore my Incredible Natural Talent at PvP) (this post was prepared in advance based on behaviour model so that I could post it from phone without having to do all that, ignore any parts where the predictive model failed)
Azherae wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » VmanGman wrote: » Most people are ok with losing to someone who is better than them. But they’re not ok with losing to someone just because an artificial numbers is higher. How is that such a hard concept?? Artificial numbers like levels, or skill points, or ability scores? Ok. 🤷♂️ Had you read even just the title of the conversation you would understand that the conversation is about gear. Skill points and ability scores do not seem to be designed to offer quite as much power increase as gear in AoC and they also do not seem to be as exclusive. I finally understand your problem and can disengage. You're a PvP elitist who doesn't want other focuses to be able to stand up to or trump practicing PvP skill by conversion into gear. Good luck.
Azherae wrote: » Don't.
George_Black wrote: » If you want pure skill go play tekken or dota or whatever. Mind you... casuals will never be better in mmo pvp even if you give them a max out char with top items. Know why? Lack of experience.
