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.
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.
So does it come down to how the game is advertised or represented in marketing, then? I too, think of those games (even the ones I described, let's assume you pay for extra inventory like BDO - where it isn't permanent) as sub games with F2P options.
I don't personally have a definition of 'true F2P' yet, and don't have much faith in games that have them, but that brings me back to the question. Let's parallel.
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.
Ashes hasn't even defined 'casual' itself so I've been assuming that they are using what I understand to be the 'industry standard', but they could also just be thinking 'well there's some little stuff that you can do, you're casual so you don't care about all this other content' will be okay for people.
That would make it the equivalent of one of those games I consider to 'cheat' me, as a casual player. I'd get all invested, expecting to eventually be able to function in the content the game talks about, and then find that unless I can find more time than I have, I can't actually experience it other than as someone's punching bag.
Coming from fighting games, which routinely OUTRIGHT DIE due to this exact dynamic, there's some semi valid concerns here (yes this has all been a long buildup to Defining the Aggrieved Party).
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.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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??
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...)
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.
By your logic AoC needs to be a PvE game to satisfy the endless progression that PvE players ask for.
AoC can be a PvX game even after you reach BiS. Had you paid attention to the way it’s designed you would know that professions, maintaining your gear, politics, events, lore, sieges, wars, and just good old hanging out in an online fantasy world among other things are all things that you can keep doing after you reach BiS.
I’m sorry, but if you think that you need an endless stick to chase (gear) to enjoy AoC, then you don’t understand what they’re trying to build or what a PvX sandpark MMORPG is.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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...)
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.
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...)
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.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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...)
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.
I perfectly understand that gear in MMOs partially achieves what the game system usually doesn’t.
Here’s the cold hard truth, if you are a hardcore player who is good at the game, you would win even if you were at a reasonable gear disadvantage against a casual player (most of the time). Therefore, it makes no sense to continue giving hardcore players more and more advantages through artificial numbers (gear). However, that’s not how MMOs usually work. Therefore, a slight advantage will allow for progression while also not pushing the advantage too much further than IT ALREADY IS (through the assumed higher skill of a hardcore player).
Yes, I know how long leveling takes… that doesn’t change the fact that when a casual eventually reaches max level they will be frustrated to be faced with insurmountable gear power discrepancies.
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.
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?
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. 🤷♂️
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.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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?
You’re simply wrong. I do not need to define casual and hardcore with numbers to have a conversation. Casual and hardcore are clearly understood in the MMORPG community to be within a certain ballpark range. The exact number is irrelevant because the idea still stays the same. Someone who plays the game casually should not face an insurmountable gear power discrepancy when they come across a hardcore player. Only unreasonable people would try to push the boundaries and come up with 15 minutes a week for casuals… but people that I have any hope of reasoning with, would understand what casual and hardcore mean in the MMORPG community (within a ballpark range).
The problem isn’t that we don’t have a common ballpark understanding of what casual and hardcore means… the problem, like I said before, is that there are some people here who want to be able to wipe the floor with casuals just because they spent more time in game to increase an artificial number. There is no misunderstanding. There is just a completely different understanding of what a good and healthy MMORPG is.
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)
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. 🤷♂️
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.
I can only say one thing with regard to your giving casual players a lot of credit. Personal opinion -> advice, of course.
Don't.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
1
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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)
But if gear power discrepancies are too great, then the hardcore economic player would still most likely win because they have more money to buy better gear even though their PvP skill level is lacking.
You try to come off so smart with all your belittling comments and now even with prepared in advance answers (haha what kind of crappy superiority complex is that?), but you fail to understand that simple concept I mentioned above… you’re proving my point. Again, if the gear power discrepancies are too great, then a hardcore economy player could still win against a casual PvP player because they have more money to buy better gear. Thank you for helping my point.
Edit: word
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Hahahaha. I have no problem with other focuses providing their own set of advantages… however, I do have a problem with someone winning just because an artificial number said so.
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.
So they shouldn't need the gear to help them have an overwhelming advantage... Their skill should be enough.
Again, I'm not advocating for gear to be meaningless. I'm just saying the scale of difference should be small enough to where there should be a chance not a complete roflstomp because some high schooler with no life can devote 100 hours a week
If you don't protect the casuals in some way you're either going to have
A ) people /sit and take the L just so whoever is hitting them at least gets corruption
Or
B ) the casuals will quit the game...
"WeLl AsHeS iSn'T fOr EvErYoNe!¡!"
Ok, but the game will still fall apart if there isn't a large healthy player base to fill out the world. An MMO can't survive off of it's hardcore players alone.
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.
🤦♂️
0
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
By your logic AoC needs to be a PvE game to satisfy the endless progression that PvE players ask for.
It does need to have a near endless progression path, but that does not mean it needs to be a PvE game.
Of all the things you listed that you claim can keep people in Ashes once they are at the level cap, the only one that isn't standard among all MMO's is sieges. Everything else combined together doesn't keep people in games
This isn't a great selling point - you are basically saying that once people reach the progression ceiling, they should stay in the game purely because they now have to fight to maintain what they have.
This will see most people stay in the game for a few months, may be up to 6, but no longer.
Most people want to play an MMO to progress.
If we are talking about people playing Ashes for a half decade or more (which is how long an MMO should be attempting to keep players), then progression is simply fundamental.
1
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
By your logic AoC needs to be a PvE game to satisfy the endless progression that PvE players ask for.
It does need to have a near endless progression path, but that does not mean it needs to be a PvE game.
Of all the things you listed that you claim can keep people in Ashes once they are at the level cap, the only one that isn't standard among all MMO's is sieges. Everything else combined together doesn't keep people in games
This isn't a great selling point - you are basically saying that once people reach the progression ceiling, they should stay in the game purely because they now have to fight to maintain what they have.
This will see most people stay in the game for a few months, may be up to 6, but no longer.
Most people want to play an MMO to progress.
If we are talking about people playing Ashes for a half decade or more (which is how long an MMO should be attempting to keep players), then progression is simply fundamental.
Guild Wars 2 has entered the chat. Come on man… are you even trying with these arguments?
AoC has more than enough content to keep players engaged beyond endless gear grinds.
How many times have you heard - even just on these forums - of people just getting bored with GW2 and leaving? Are you really trying to say that people do not leave GW2 due to there being no more progression to be had? Because that was the question...
Sure, there are a subset of players that find the progression paths offered in GW2 to be enough, and find enjoyment in other aspects of the game - but those players are not the type of player that would put up with open PvP, or with losing progression to a siege.
Ashes is targeting a specific type of MMO player. It is not a PvP only player (which seems to be what you think the game is about), and it is not a PvE only player. It is someone that is in between, that wants to play, and succeed, and do well in the game, and is willing to fight to hold on to what they have worked for.
In my experience, such players need a constant progression stream to maintain interest, and you are suggesting that be taken away.
This absolutely would leave Ashes as a PvP only game with no character progression. It literally may as well be a lobby based game at that point - a MOBA by a different name.
2
Options
VmanGmanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
How many times have you heard - even just on these forums - of people just getting bored with GW2 and leaving? Are you really trying to say that people do not leave GW2 due to there being no more progression to be had? Because that was the question...
Sure, there are a subset of players that find the progression paths offered in GW2 to be enough, and find enjoyment in other aspects of the game - but those players are not the type of player that would put up with open PvP, or with losing progression to a siege.
Ashes is targeting a specific type of MMO player. It is not a PvP only player (which seems to be what you think the game is about), and it is not a PvE only player. It is someone that is in between, that wants to play, and succeed, and do well in the game, and is willing to fight to hold on to what they have worked for.
In my experience, such players need a constant progression stream to maintain interest, and you are suggesting that be taken away.
This absolutely would leave Ashes as a PvP only game with no character progression. It literally may as well be a lobby based game at that point - a MOBA by a different name.
My point is that you said that most people want to play a MMO to progress. I pointed to a MMO that has been around for 10 years and that has arguably no progression and it is still one of the biggest MMOs out there. Now add to that the fact that AoC has way more progression then GW2 AND the fact that it is a sandpark and you soon realize that there are plenty of people who will play even after they reach “BiS” (which in AoC won’t be easy at all and will not even be the focus of the game). You don’t understand what AoC is trying to be if you think that it’s designed for people who need to always be given a bigger carrot to chase (gear).
I absolutely do not think that AoC is targeting PvP or PvE only players. All I’m saying is that gear progression will not work the way you think it will and will not be as big of a focus as you seem to think it will be. This isn’t a game where everyone can just easily hunt down all their BiS pieces and be done. Not only will that be incredibly hard, but also there is way more that the game focuses on than just gear.
It amazes me to see that people are still trying to argue with someone as hard-headed and who lacks the minimum faith in the Ashes Team to properly balance gear power as our dear friend VmanGman.
Is mister VmanGman already able to escape the subjective Casual vs Hardcore Dichotomy idea or at the very least provide his own definitions?
Is he able to comprehend the concept of Time-efficient casuals and Time-inefficient hardcore players?
Has he coped with Steven's 40-50% character power influenced by gear or is he still stunlocked with his 20-30%?
Can he graps the concept of "meaningful gear progression in an MMORPG"?
Has him already acquired the "Saviour of the Casuals" Title?
My point is that you said that most people want to play a MMO to progress. I pointed to a MMO that has been around for 10 years and that has arguably no progression and it is still one of the biggest MMOs out there.
So, are you saying that GW2 players are who you think Intrepid is targeting Ashes at?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think we also have to factor in gear acquisition from participating in Events plus Crafting, rather than assume that competive gear will only be acquired from tons of time repeating Dungeons and Raids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnQ1Cve-bXE&t=885s
Mark 14:45
Steven: "I believe that Crafting will be up there with the epitome of world boss drops. But, I think the best Crafted items are going to involve some major accomplishments in theenvironment such as killing tose bosses and Gathering the materials necessary to create certain types of items."
Jeffrey: "Creafters will probably be creating a lot of Best in Slot items. The rarity of them will be comensurate with the effort to create them and also how good they actually are. We want Crafters to be the rock stars of items. That's what they're there for - that's what their intention is supposed to be."
Steven: "And they should be because our Crafting system is in-depth. I mean, it is a serious Crafting system."
Jeffrey: "I always get frustrated when I play a game and there's almost no point to Crafting. I mean, it's a fun ittle side project to do and you spend some money to do it and you make some weapons, but then you never use them? It's frustrating."
Steven: "Because I got some bound item from the dungeon so why should I ever need a Crafted item. It's like a worthless part of the game. So in our game, we wanted to bring Crafting, and the Economy in general, into the forefront of what a player experiences. And it brings a necessity for those types of players as well. We want a healthy blend of populations so we need to offerwhat Economy means to people who want to excel in it."
Also: Steven: "Highest Tier items in game will be a combo of both crafted and boss dropped."
I think we also have to factor in gear acquisition from participating in Events plus Crafting, rather than assume that competive gear will only be acquired from tons of time repeating Dungeons and Raids.
While true - unless the plan is to hand out gear during such events at random, the better gear from such events is unlikely to go to casual players.
Comments
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.
So does it come down to how the game is advertised or represented in marketing, then? I too, think of those games (even the ones I described, let's assume you pay for extra inventory like BDO - where it isn't permanent) as sub games with F2P options.
I don't personally have a definition of 'true F2P' yet, and don't have much faith in games that have them, but that brings me back to the question. Let's parallel.
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.
Ashes hasn't even defined 'casual' itself so I've been assuming that they are using what I understand to be the 'industry standard', but they could also just be thinking 'well there's some little stuff that you can do, you're casual so you don't care about all this other content' will be okay for people.
That would make it the equivalent of one of those games I consider to 'cheat' me, as a casual player. I'd get all invested, expecting to eventually be able to function in the content the game talks about, and then find that unless I can find more time than I have, I can't actually experience it other than as someone's punching bag.
Coming from fighting games, which routinely OUTRIGHT DIE due to this exact dynamic, there's some semi valid concerns here (yes this has all been a long buildup to Defining the Aggrieved Party).
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.
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...)
By your logic AoC needs to be a PvE game to satisfy the endless progression that PvE players ask for.
AoC can be a PvX game even after you reach BiS. Had you paid attention to the way it’s designed you would know that professions, maintaining your gear, politics, events, lore, sieges, wars, and just good old hanging out in an online fantasy world among other things are all things that you can keep doing after you reach BiS.
I’m sorry, but if you think that you need an endless stick to chase (gear) to enjoy AoC, then you don’t understand what they’re trying to build or what a PvX sandpark MMORPG is.
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.
I perfectly understand that gear in MMOs partially achieves what the game system usually doesn’t.
Here’s the cold hard truth, if you are a hardcore player who is good at the game, you would win even if you were at a reasonable gear disadvantage against a casual player (most of the time). Therefore, it makes no sense to continue giving hardcore players more and more advantages through artificial numbers (gear). However, that’s not how MMOs usually work. Therefore, a slight advantage will allow for progression while also not pushing the advantage too much further than IT ALREADY IS (through the assumed higher skill of a hardcore player).
Yes, I know how long leveling takes… that doesn’t change the fact that when a casual eventually reaches max level they will be frustrated to be faced with insurmountable gear power discrepancies.
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?
Artificial numbers like levels, or skill points, or ability scores? Ok. 🤷♂️
I don’t think so, but I’d need to think more about that.
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.
Interesting perspective, but I don’t agree that they’re equivalent.
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.
You’re simply wrong. I do not need to define casual and hardcore with numbers to have a conversation. Casual and hardcore are clearly understood in the MMORPG community to be within a certain ballpark range. The exact number is irrelevant because the idea still stays the same. Someone who plays the game casually should not face an insurmountable gear power discrepancy when they come across a hardcore player. Only unreasonable people would try to push the boundaries and come up with 15 minutes a week for casuals… but people that I have any hope of reasoning with, would understand what casual and hardcore mean in the MMORPG community (within a ballpark range).
The problem isn’t that we don’t have a common ballpark understanding of what casual and hardcore means… the problem, like I said before, is that there are some people here who want to be able to wipe the floor with casuals just because they spent more time in game to increase an artificial number. There is no misunderstanding. There is just a completely different understanding of what a good and healthy MMORPG is.
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)
I can only say one thing with regard to your giving casual players a lot of credit. Personal opinion -> advice, of course.
Don't.
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.
But if gear power discrepancies are too great, then the hardcore economic player would still most likely win because they have more money to buy better gear even though their PvP skill level is lacking.
You try to come off so smart with all your belittling comments and now even with prepared in advance answers (haha what kind of crappy superiority complex is that?), but you fail to understand that simple concept I mentioned above… you’re proving my point. Again, if the gear power discrepancies are too great, then a hardcore economy player could still win against a casual PvP player because they have more money to buy better gear. Thank you for helping my point.
Edit: word
Hahahaha. I have no problem with other focuses providing their own set of advantages… however, I do have a problem with someone winning just because an artificial number said so.
Lol!
So they shouldn't need the gear to help them have an overwhelming advantage... Their skill should be enough.
Again, I'm not advocating for gear to be meaningless. I'm just saying the scale of difference should be small enough to where there should be a chance not a complete roflstomp because some high schooler with no life can devote 100 hours a week
If you don't protect the casuals in some way you're either going to have
A ) people /sit and take the L just so whoever is hitting them at least gets corruption
Or
B ) the casuals will quit the game...
"WeLl AsHeS iSn'T fOr EvErYoNe!¡!"
Ok, but the game will still fall apart if there isn't a large healthy player base to fill out the world. An MMO can't survive off of it's hardcore players alone.
🤦♂️
I agree.
Of all the things you listed that you claim can keep people in Ashes once they are at the level cap, the only one that isn't standard among all MMO's is sieges. Everything else combined together doesn't keep people in games
This isn't a great selling point - you are basically saying that once people reach the progression ceiling, they should stay in the game purely because they now have to fight to maintain what they have.
This will see most people stay in the game for a few months, may be up to 6, but no longer.
Most people want to play an MMO to progress.
If we are talking about people playing Ashes for a half decade or more (which is how long an MMO should be attempting to keep players), then progression is simply fundamental.
Guild Wars 2 has entered the chat. Come on man… are you even trying with these arguments?
AoC has more than enough content to keep players engaged beyond endless gear grinds.
Sure, there are a subset of players that find the progression paths offered in GW2 to be enough, and find enjoyment in other aspects of the game - but those players are not the type of player that would put up with open PvP, or with losing progression to a siege.
Ashes is targeting a specific type of MMO player. It is not a PvP only player (which seems to be what you think the game is about), and it is not a PvE only player. It is someone that is in between, that wants to play, and succeed, and do well in the game, and is willing to fight to hold on to what they have worked for.
In my experience, such players need a constant progression stream to maintain interest, and you are suggesting that be taken away.
This absolutely would leave Ashes as a PvP only game with no character progression. It literally may as well be a lobby based game at that point - a MOBA by a different name.
My point is that you said that most people want to play a MMO to progress. I pointed to a MMO that has been around for 10 years and that has arguably no progression and it is still one of the biggest MMOs out there. Now add to that the fact that AoC has way more progression then GW2 AND the fact that it is a sandpark and you soon realize that there are plenty of people who will play even after they reach “BiS” (which in AoC won’t be easy at all and will not even be the focus of the game). You don’t understand what AoC is trying to be if you think that it’s designed for people who need to always be given a bigger carrot to chase (gear).
I absolutely do not think that AoC is targeting PvP or PvE only players. All I’m saying is that gear progression will not work the way you think it will and will not be as big of a focus as you seem to think it will be. This isn’t a game where everyone can just easily hunt down all their BiS pieces and be done. Not only will that be incredibly hard, but also there is way more that the game focuses on than just gear.
It amazes me to see that people are still trying to argue with someone as hard-headed and who lacks the minimum faith in the Ashes Team to properly balance gear power as our dear friend VmanGman.
Is mister VmanGman already able to escape the subjective Casual vs Hardcore Dichotomy idea or at the very least provide his own definitions?
Is he able to comprehend the concept of Time-efficient casuals and Time-inefficient hardcore players?
Has he coped with Steven's 40-50% character power influenced by gear or is he still stunlocked with his 20-30%?
Can he graps the concept of "meaningful gear progression in an MMORPG"?
Has him already acquired the "Saviour of the Casuals" Title?
Aren't we all sinners?
Mark 14:45
Steven: "I believe that Crafting will be up there with the epitome of world boss drops. But, I think the best Crafted items are going to involve some major accomplishments in theenvironment such as killing tose bosses and Gathering the materials necessary to create certain types of items."
Jeffrey: "Creafters will probably be creating a lot of Best in Slot items. The rarity of them will be comensurate with the effort to create them and also how good they actually are. We want Crafters to be the rock stars of items. That's what they're there for - that's what their intention is supposed to be."
Steven: "And they should be because our Crafting system is in-depth. I mean, it is a serious Crafting system."
Jeffrey: "I always get frustrated when I play a game and there's almost no point to Crafting. I mean, it's a fun ittle side project to do and you spend some money to do it and you make some weapons, but then you never use them? It's frustrating."
Steven: "Because I got some bound item from the dungeon so why should I ever need a Crafted item. It's like a worthless part of the game. So in our game, we wanted to bring Crafting, and the Economy in general, into the forefront of what a player experiences. And it brings a necessity for those types of players as well. We want a healthy blend of populations so we need to offerwhat Economy means to people who want to excel in it."
Also:
Steven: "Highest Tier items in game will be a combo of both crafted and boss dropped."