worddog wrote: » Summpwner wrote: » BaSkA13 wrote: » The easiest way to deal with this mentality is by agreeing: yes, it's P2W, but it's better than any other type of P2W. What is the logic here? That "winning" means having the prettiest JPGs? Nothing in an MMO matters inherently, it's just a video game meant to provide entertainment. If you care more about how your character looks than how much damage it does than technically yeah it's P2W in a sense. Think about RPers right.
Summpwner wrote: » BaSkA13 wrote: » The easiest way to deal with this mentality is by agreeing: yes, it's P2W, but it's better than any other type of P2W. What is the logic here? That "winning" means having the prettiest JPGs?
BaSkA13 wrote: » The easiest way to deal with this mentality is by agreeing: yes, it's P2W, but it's better than any other type of P2W.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Summpwner wrote: » BaSkA13 wrote: » The easiest way to deal with this mentality is by agreeing: yes, it's P2W, but it's better than any other type of P2W. What is the logic here? That "winning" means having the prettiest JPGs? Nothing in an MMO matters inherently, it's just a video game meant to provide entertainment. If you care more about how your character looks than how much damage it does than technically yeah it's P2W in a sense. Think about RPers right. No, because this requires the participant to decide what winning is, not the developer. If you enter a race, the winner is generally the first to cross the finish line. No one is running a race, losing to Usain Bolt and saying "but I LOOKED better running the race, so I should get a gold medal too". Sure, people are able to have their own objectives. You may run a marathon with the intention of beating your personal best but no intention of winning. That's great, more power to you. However, if you enter the Boston Marathon and beat your personal best, you are jot going to claim you won the Boston Marathon (unless you also happen to have crossed the finish line first). In an MMO, the developer sets the win condition, not the player. Players can set personal goals, that's fine - but they cant set win conditions.
Depraved wrote: » .then its p2lc not p2w wait why no one complains about league of legends skins? or any other genra skins..only mmorpg?
worddog wrote: » Sure but the issue of P2W is that you have to pay to have fun right.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Sure but the issue of P2W is that you have to pay to have fun right. No. The only way something could be pay to win in an MMO is of it increases your economic potential. This could be via direct selling, via crafting or via killing mobs or players better. Having fun isnt involved at all - at least not directly. It is pay to win, not pay to have fun.
worddog wrote: » Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Sure but the issue of P2W is that you have to pay to have fun right. No. The only way something could be pay to win in an MMO is of it increases your economic potential. This could be via direct selling, via crafting or via killing mobs or players better. Having fun isnt involved at all - at least not directly. It is pay to win, not pay to have fun. Yeah but why does pay to win matter. Because it isn't fun. If P2W was more fun than we would all want our games to be P2W. I'm just making that comparison to other things like cosmetics. If something isn't fun it probably shouldn't be there. Of course people might like the cash shop and then in that case it's totally fine.
worddog wrote: » Yeah but why does pay to win matter. Because it isn't fun. If P2W was more fun than we would all want our games to be P2W.
Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Noaani wrote: » worddog wrote: » Sure but the issue of P2W is that you have to pay to have fun right. No. The only way something could be pay to win in an MMO is of it increases your economic potential. This could be via direct selling, via crafting or via killing mobs or players better. Having fun isnt involved at all - at least not directly. It is pay to win, not pay to have fun. Yeah but why does pay to win matter. Because it isn't fun. If P2W was more fun than we would all want our games to be P2W. I'm just making that comparison to other things like cosmetics. If something isn't fun it probably shouldn't be there. Of course people might like the cash shop and then in that case it's totally fine. Some people really like pay to win games. I knew an accountant in Archeage that absolutely loved that about the game. The reason we want Ashes to not be pay to win is because that is what the game was sold to us as. It is the same as why we dont want Ashes to drop open world PvP - even though there are many successful MMO's without it. Pay to win is simply one of those things that some games have and some do not. I fail to understand the connection between this and freehold being pay to win.
worddog wrote: » Freeholds allow you to at the very least grow a limited amount of crops. If you want to bypass that limit you can spend $15 a month.
Craiken wrote: » I could imagine a system where you need 1000 super-fruits to craft the best armor in the game.
Craiken wrote: » One way to prevent the number of freeholds from feeling like a resource bottleneck is to make acquiring freeholds, maintaining them, harvesting things, and transporting stuff a large part of the crafting process. If you instead get passive value, people will naturally be attracted to that.
Strevi wrote: » Craiken wrote: » One way to prevent the number of freeholds from feeling like a resource bottleneck is to make acquiring freeholds, maintaining them, harvesting things, and transporting stuff a large part of the crafting process. If you instead get passive value, people will naturally be attracted to that. Good point. Freeholds can be obtained. And will be used a long time after were obtained so a player might have the possibility to get a 2nd one too. The game limits the account to one citizenship only per server and one freehold per account for the same purpose: to make the player focus on the community of the node. A 2nd account would allow a 2nd freehold and a 2nd citizenship and less attachment to the node you live in. Would also allow you to fight against the node were you have a 2nd home or more likely prevent you to want to fight. And as a mayor, you could take less optimal decisions because you have such incentives which are not also for the community's benefit. Of course the mayor can be corrupted and secretly working for friends or a rich guild to ruin a node or make trade agreements it shouldn't but at least the game does not directly encourage this with a free 2nd citizenship.
Azherae wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Craiken wrote: » One way to prevent the number of freeholds from feeling like a resource bottleneck is to make acquiring freeholds, maintaining them, harvesting things, and transporting stuff a large part of the crafting process. If you instead get passive value, people will naturally be attracted to that. Good point. Freeholds can be obtained. And will be used a long time after were obtained so a player might have the possibility to get a 2nd one too. The game limits the account to one citizenship only per server and one freehold per account for the same purpose: to make the player focus on the community of the node. A 2nd account would allow a 2nd freehold and a 2nd citizenship and less attachment to the node you live in. Would also allow you to fight against the node were you have a 2nd home or more likely prevent you to want to fight. And as a mayor, you could take less optimal decisions because you have such incentives which are not also for the community's benefit. Of course the mayor can be corrupted and secretly working for friends or a rich guild to ruin a node or make trade agreements it shouldn't but at least the game does not directly encourage this with a free 2nd citizenship. There's no sane way to prevent this for a Western game. Korean ones can (and do) demand unique personal identifiers. But unless Intrepid wants to lockout every couple who wants to play together but don't want to share a Freehold, or every 'pair of siblings who share a computer or internet connection but play separately', we're not going to see anything to prevent this. Therefore as usual the only thing they can do is focus on 'making it harder to do or less effective in some way'. This is why the argument here is the EQUIVALENT of 'having friends is P2W'. I can go one step further to the ultimate. Being married irl is pay to win.
worddog wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Craiken wrote: » One way to prevent the number of freeholds from feeling like a resource bottleneck is to make acquiring freeholds, maintaining them, harvesting things, and transporting stuff a large part of the crafting process. If you instead get passive value, people will naturally be attracted to that. Good point. Freeholds can be obtained. And will be used a long time after were obtained so a player might have the possibility to get a 2nd one too. The game limits the account to one citizenship only per server and one freehold per account for the same purpose: to make the player focus on the community of the node. A 2nd account would allow a 2nd freehold and a 2nd citizenship and less attachment to the node you live in. Would also allow you to fight against the node were you have a 2nd home or more likely prevent you to want to fight. And as a mayor, you could take less optimal decisions because you have such incentives which are not also for the community's benefit. Of course the mayor can be corrupted and secretly working for friends or a rich guild to ruin a node or make trade agreements it shouldn't but at least the game does not directly encourage this with a free 2nd citizenship. There's no sane way to prevent this for a Western game. Korean ones can (and do) demand unique personal identifiers. But unless Intrepid wants to lockout every couple who wants to play together but don't want to share a Freehold, or every 'pair of siblings who share a computer or internet connection but play separately', we're not going to see anything to prevent this. Therefore as usual the only thing they can do is focus on 'making it harder to do or less effective in some way'. This is why the argument here is the EQUIVALENT of 'having friends is P2W'. I can go one step further to the ultimate. Being married irl is pay to win. You could let alts have their own freeholds. I mean most players won't even have a freehold, they're supposed to be pretty big achievements. I'm basically only talking about the top 1% of players here.
Strevi wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Craiken wrote: » One way to prevent the number of freeholds from feeling like a resource bottleneck is to make acquiring freeholds, maintaining them, harvesting things, and transporting stuff a large part of the crafting process. If you instead get passive value, people will naturally be attracted to that. Good point. Freeholds can be obtained. And will be used a long time after were obtained so a player might have the possibility to get a 2nd one too. The game limits the account to one citizenship only per server and one freehold per account for the same purpose: to make the player focus on the community of the node. A 2nd account would allow a 2nd freehold and a 2nd citizenship and less attachment to the node you live in. Would also allow you to fight against the node were you have a 2nd home or more likely prevent you to want to fight. And as a mayor, you could take less optimal decisions because you have such incentives which are not also for the community's benefit. Of course the mayor can be corrupted and secretly working for friends or a rich guild to ruin a node or make trade agreements it shouldn't but at least the game does not directly encourage this with a free 2nd citizenship. There's no sane way to prevent this for a Western game. Korean ones can (and do) demand unique personal identifiers. But unless Intrepid wants to lockout every couple who wants to play together but don't want to share a Freehold, or every 'pair of siblings who share a computer or internet connection but play separately', we're not going to see anything to prevent this. Therefore as usual the only thing they can do is focus on 'making it harder to do or less effective in some way'. This is why the argument here is the EQUIVALENT of 'having friends is P2W'. I can go one step further to the ultimate. Being married irl is pay to win. And hear your wife singing, doing a karaoke every day and being forced to tell her how beautiful her voice is? I have some doubts... But yes, it can open the possibility to defeat raid content easier... Everyone walks it own path.
