If I play as F2P I have minimal LP and can only really find equal footing if I pay extra money to buy LP from the cash shop, but if I pay for a sub then I have max LP as part of the sub?
Is that the deal here?
Or is the drama because a non sub player could drop £100 a month in the shop and have more LP than a paying sub?
I am entirely OK with paying a sub fee for a game (actually prefer it) but if I pay a sub fee then have to drop more money for expanded inventory or character slots then F no to that ish. Furthermore, if I pay a sub fee and people who are F2P can drop money on items that increase their experience percentage - or give them other benefits - beyond what I get is also a no go.
I could understand a F2P player dropping money on an experience boost that brings their experience, for whatever it is, up to a subscription players level for a limited amount of time, but it should never exceed those who are supporting you with a monthly subscription.
Basically, to surmise: A F2P player should never be able to pay for something that is better than what a subscription player has. It's OK if the F2P player does it buffett size; maybe they don't want to own land, or don't care about inventory space, or don't want alts. This would allow them to pay for the things they are interested in. Maybe just 5 dollars for a 30 day exp boost that brings them in line with subscription players. They won't get the other benefits of a subscription, but they could buy the aspects they care about.
but to take a sub and then eek out money on top of that.
That would be shameful and I'd vote with my dollar against it by walking the F away.
If I play as F2P I have minimal LP and can only really find equal footing if I pay extra money to buy LP from the cash shop, but if I pay for a sub then I have max LP as part of the sub?
Is that the deal here?
Or is the drama because a non sub player could drop £100 a month in the shop and have more LP than a paying sub?
That is the question. IMHO the first example you brought up is totally fine and an interesting way to finance your game moving forward and the second example is unforgivable and just greedy.
Comments
So what's the problem here?
If I play as F2P I have minimal LP and can only really find equal footing if I pay extra money to buy LP from the cash shop, but if I pay for a sub then I have max LP as part of the sub?
Is that the deal here?
Or is the drama because a non sub player could drop £100 a month in the shop and have more LP than a paying sub?
I am entirely OK with paying a sub fee for a game (actually prefer it) but if I pay a sub fee then have to drop more money for expanded inventory or character slots then F no to that ish. Furthermore, if I pay a sub fee and people who are F2P can drop money on items that increase their experience percentage - or give them other benefits - beyond what I get is also a no go.
I could understand a F2P player dropping money on an experience boost that brings their experience, for whatever it is, up to a subscription players level for a limited amount of time, but it should never exceed those who are supporting you with a monthly subscription.
Basically, to surmise: A F2P player should never be able to pay for something that is better than what a subscription player has. It's OK if the F2P player does it buffett size; maybe they don't want to own land, or don't care about inventory space, or don't want alts. This would allow them to pay for the things they are interested in. Maybe just 5 dollars for a 30 day exp boost that brings them in line with subscription players. They won't get the other benefits of a subscription, but they could buy the aspects they care about.
but to take a sub and then eek out money on top of that.
That would be shameful and I'd vote with my dollar against it by walking the F away.
That is the question. IMHO the first example you brought up is totally fine and an interesting way to finance your game moving forward and the second example is unforgivable and just greedy.
Again...IMHO.