Freeholds P2W?

You can only have one freehold per account.

Doesn't this massively incentivize having multiple accounts?
If my alts can't own property doesn't that make them much less useful?
If I need to pay $15 a month per alt account how is that not P2W?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Taleof2Cities

@worddog

It's not surprising that everyone has their own personal definition of "Pay-To-Win".

Here's a google search for the basic definition of the term ... so everyone is using the right context going forward:

Pay-to-win, abbreviated as P2W, describes an aspect of a game where players are allowed to get an advantage with real-world currency to purchase in-game items. Pay-to-win games usually offer better weapons, armor, character abilities, or in-game currency to players as microtransactions.

Freeholds are not something that advance your character's abilities, weapons, armor, or in-game currency.

Which also explains why the first few replies in your thread were sarcastic.

CROW3

I’d rather focus on multi boxers, gold sellers/buyers, and bots. Just having an alt account isn’t necessarily a p2w issue.

SongRune

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

It's not surprising that everyone has their own personal definition of "Pay-To-Win".

Here's a google search for the basic definition of the term ... so everyone is using the right context going forward:

Pay-to-win, abbreviated as P2W, describes an aspect of a game where players are allowed to get an advantage with real-world currency to purchase in-game items. Pay-to-win games usually offer better weapons, armor, character abilities, or in-game currency to players as microtransactions.

Freeholds are not something that advance your character's abilities, weapons, armor, or in-game currency.

Additional freeholds are likely to grant additional in-game currency by giving you access to more money-making activities and 'tools' than you can fit in a single freehold.

Many people rightfully consider things that multiply economic power, such as "faster crafting" or "more farm spaces" as pay to win. A reasonable argument can be made for also including increased economic adaptability due to the additional opportunities for profit that are available if you are able to nimbly react to economic shifts.

worddog2

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Freeholds are not something that advance your character's abilities, weapons, armor, or in-game currency.

Which also explains why the first few replies in your thread were sarcastic.

Freeholds are literally the biggest thing in the game for processors. You literally cannot process certain resources without a freehold.

Why would you comment so strongly on something you know nothing about.

Hinotori

SongRune wrote: »

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

It's not surprising that everyone has their own personal definition of "Pay-To-Win".

Here's a google search for the basic definition of the term ... so everyone is using the right context going forward:

Pay-to-win, abbreviated as P2W, describes an aspect of a game where players are allowed to get an advantage with real-world currency to purchase in-game items. Pay-to-win games usually offer better weapons, armor, character abilities, or in-game currency to players as microtransactions.

Freeholds are not something that advance your character's abilities, weapons, armor, or in-game currency.

Additional freeholds are likely to grant additional in-game currency by giving you access to more money-making activities and 'tools' than you can fit in a single freehold.

Many people rightfully consider things that multiply economic power, such as "faster crafting" or "more farm spaces" as pay to win. A reasonable argument can be made for also including increased economic adaptability due to the additional opportunities for profit that are available if you are able to nimbly react to economic shifts.

While this is true this money making ability doesn't appear out of thin air. Youre still going to have to upgrade the freehold and level the separate character as well as purchasing the plot and paying the relevant taxes along with levelling your alts classes and scouring for the materials you'll be using for the craft on that character or your main.

Youre literally taking the game and turning yourself into a no-lifer to earn a couple extra credits and be less social.

If people want to reach that level of min/max gold per hour and are happy to give up life and 15 dollars to do so then power to them.

CROW3

Let’s just use South Korea’s SSN approach for account creation.

Excessive murderhobos can then be reported to the IRS. 😉

Craiken

This could be an issue, but it depends on a lot of factors that we can't analyze yet. I hope they'll keep it in mind during testing.

Edit: Would it be terrible to allow alts to have their own freeholds and housing? That could just solve the potential problem right away.

worddog2

Craiken wrote: »

This could be an issue, but it depends on a lot of factors that we can't analyze yet. I hope they'll keep it in mind during testing.

Edit: Would it be terrible to allow alts to have their own freeholds and housing? That could just solve the potential problem right away.

I think the idea is that freeholds are supposed to be really massive achievements, so they don't like the idea of one player having multiple. But I don't think they are accounting for what super hardcore players will do.

Ludullu

Craiken wrote: »

Edit: Would it be terrible to allow alts to have their own freeholds and housing? That could just solve the potential problem right away.

And create another problem. That is, potentially increasing the amount of housing by 8+ times. The world already had to be increased to accommodate 10k citizens. If alts could get separate housing and freeholds the game would have to support around 80k freeholds (or more if we'll have more than 8 char slots).

worddog2

NiKr wrote: »

Craiken wrote: »

Edit: Would it be terrible to allow alts to have their own freeholds and housing? That could just solve the potential problem right away.

And create another problem. That is, potentially increasing the amount of housing by 8+ times. The world already had to be increased to accommodate 10k citizens. If alts could get separate housing and freeholds the game would have to support around 80k freeholds (or more if we'll have more than 8 char slots).

They should never increase the amount of housing/property available. Land needs to be as scarce as possible to incentivize wars.

Craiken

NiKr wrote: »

If alts could get separate housing and freeholds the game would have to support around 80k freeholds (or more if we'll have more than 8 char slots).

If it makes sense for a single player to have multiple alts with freeholds, then it will also make sense for someone to pay for multiple accounts to acquire freeholds that way.

My opinion is that they should either:

A ) Make it infeasible for a single player to acquire or maintain multiple freeholds, thus reducing the incentive to advance in the game via the purchase of multiple accounts.
OR
B ) Allow players to acquire freeholds using alts on their account.

unknownsystemerror

worddog wrote: »

pyreal wrote: »

Play to Win, right?

I think that's the direction they are going.

There isn't a system in the game that pays you $15 a month so you can get another account to bypass the property restrictions.

The referral system can indeed pay you money to be used for your sub. So there is indeed a system to get another account for "free"

worddog2

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

pyreal wrote: »

Play to Win, right?

I think that's the direction they are going.

There isn't a system in the game that pays you $15 a month so you can get another account to bypass the property restrictions.

The referral system can indeed pay you money to be used for your sub. So there is indeed a system to get another account for "free"

Oh I genuinely did not know that it gave you money. Like it's not embers or like in game currency? If that is true than I'm actually kind of okay with that.

Ludullu

Craiken wrote: »

If it makes sense for a single player to have multiple alts with freeholds, then it will also make sense for someone to pay for multiple accounts to acquire freeholds that way.

My opinion is that they should either:

A ) Make it infeasible for a single player to acquire or maintain multiple freeholds, thus reducing the incentive to advance in the game via the purchase of multiple accounts.
OR
B ) Allow players to acquire freeholds using alts on their account.

It's not about solo players though. Freeholds will already be a mechanic for people in guilds or groups because there's a limited amount of freeholds you can get and they'll be going up in prices with each new purchase.

If alts are allowed to have freeholds, rich guilds will just pump money into alts and get all the freeholds they can (which will always be more than solos can get). With 1-per-account this action is at least limited by money. Obviously anyone who wants to do it and has the money for it will do it, but there'll still be some non-game-related limitations.

worddog2

NiKr wrote: »

Craiken wrote: »

If it makes sense for a single player to have multiple alts with freeholds, then it will also make sense for someone to pay for multiple accounts to acquire freeholds that way.

My opinion is that they should either:

A ) Make it infeasible for a single player to acquire or maintain multiple freeholds, thus reducing the incentive to advance in the game via the purchase of multiple accounts.
OR
B ) Allow players to acquire freeholds using alts on their account.

It's not about solo players though. Freeholds will already be a mechanic for people in guilds or groups because there's a limited amount of freeholds you can get and they'll be going up in prices with each new purchase.

If alts are allowed to have freeholds, rich guilds will just pump money into alts and get all the freeholds they can (which will always be more than solos can get). With 1-per-account this action is at least limited by money. Obviously anyone who wants to do it and has the money for it will do it, but there'll still be some non-game-related limitations.

Wouldn't guilds acquire all the freeholds anyway? Like whatever guild controls the node probably controls everything inside that node too right?

Ludullu

worddog wrote: »

Wouldn't guilds acquire all the freeholds anyway? Like whatever guild controls the node probably controls everything inside that node too right?

Depending on the size of the node and the guild, yes. But again, there's a difference between a 100-member guilds having 100 freeholds and that same 100-member guild having upwards of 800 freeholds. Intrepid would have to either account for that possibility (which I already mentioned) or they'd have a shitton of homeless solo players on their hands.

Also, freeholds are meant to be a part of your citizenship and you're meant to have only one citizenship per account. So this would have to get changed too if alts could have their own freeholds. And then you have even more balancing problems.

worddog2

NiKr wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

Wouldn't guilds acquire all the freeholds anyway? Like whatever guild controls the node probably controls everything inside that node too right?

Depending on the size of the node and the guild, yes. But again, there's a difference between a 100-member guilds having 100 freeholds and that same 100-member guild having upwards of 800 freeholds. Intrepid would have to either account for that possibility (which I already mentioned) or they'd have a shitton of homeless solo players on their hands.

Also, freeholds are meant to be a part of your citizenship and you're meant to have only one citizenship per account. So this would have to get changed too if alts could have their own freeholds. And then you have even more balancing problems.

Oh I didn't know that about citizenship. Does that mean alts share citizenship? I kind of assumed alts shared the freehold, but could have their own homes.

Ludullu

worddog wrote: »

Oh I didn't know that about citizenship. Does that mean alts share citizenship? I kind of assumed alts shared the freehold, but could have their own homes.

I was just double-checking that and the phrasing of the only quote on this issue is real weird for me so I don't really know. It sounds like your alts are homeless if your main has a citizenship, but then your alts are supposedly able to use the freehold so I'd assume the citizenship applies to them too.

I hope the citizenship applies to the whole account and not just to one char.

worddog2

NiKr wrote: »

worddog wrote: »

Oh I didn't know that about citizenship. Does that mean alts share citizenship? I kind of assumed alts shared the freehold, but could have their own homes.

I was just double-checking that and the phrasing of the only quote on this issue is real weird for me so I don't really know. It sounds like your alts are homeless if your main has a citizenship, but then your alts are supposedly able to use the freehold so I'd assume the citizenship applies to them too.

I hope the citizenship applies to the whole account and not just to one char.

Maybe they only let you have 1 vote per account but multiple citizenships.

Noaani

worddog wrote: »

pyreal wrote: »

Play to Win, right?

I think that's the direction they are going.

There isn't a system in the game that pays you $15 a month so you can get another account to bypass the property restrictions.

The problem with this notion is that you are assuming that YOU need to have that property.

All you need to have in game in order to render a second freehold worthless is a friend.

If you have a friend, and they put in the processing equipment you need, then your freehold is worthless to you.

So, this isn't so much a pay to win feature as it is a pay to be an introvert feature.

Assuming you are after discussion and not just hyperbole and sensationalism, the above is literally the best argument you have. Anything past this point is sensationalism and/or hyperbole.

Child Item