Look like I said... you are wasting your time and energy trying to convince us what we can all plainly see. Because I can lose and advantage does not mean I haven’t bought one.
If I buy a gun and you have a stick... I have a huge advantage. If you bring a friend, so can I so that argument is moot. If I die of old age I simply will my gun to my successor. Yes it costs more to be a noble. That’s exactly what P2W (call it pay for huge advantage if you want)is all about.
We have already discussed this in multiple threads. You or someone else will likely make another similar post in 3 months. The end result is always going to be the same. They allow you to use real world cash to buy massive in game advantages.
Dont run from it... embrace it and turn it into an advantage. Clinging to silly wordsmithing ideas like Pay 2 Build is just going to cling around the game’s neck like an anchor.
I am not trying to convince the handful of Naysayers, that would be a definite waste of my time. I am putting the information out there and participating in a debate, so that others are able to make up their own minds, rather than continuously being told how CoE is Pay-to-Win.
PS, what you neglect to take into consideration is that what others are paying for is going to be a benefit to all the players who populate that Domain.
And yes we have talked about it before, just as I have seen your store posts several times before. But now? We actually have a thread about it.
Actually, you aren't putting out information in an unbiased manner. You are essentially preaching to (at?) us unwashed sinners who don't think this game is anything but an attempt to get into the players' wallets. Putting a label on the situation ("Pay-to-Build and Manage") doesn't change the realities of the situation, nor the reality of the individual's perceptions of the situation.
Two major things that bother me about COE's philosophy.
Limited resources + a non-wipe head start. How many resources will be left for anyone not purchasing an early start package? How would a new character attempting to become a merchant compete with others who are established and have all the materials necessary to build items? You can't compete with US Steel without the resources to produce steel.
How will crime actually be punished? @Kyleran's barbarian hoard runs rampant, killing a lot of law-abiding characters. The leader is caught. How are they punished? Faction? They don't care. Imprisonment? They'll log out or switch to an alt. Jailed? They will log out/alt again or simply delete that character.
I simply don't agree with Caspian's idea of 'fair and equitable'.
My apologies, I totally missed this post and would like to respond. I agree I have a very strong opinion of what SBS is trying to do and could come off like I am preaching, but on the flipside so do those that disagree with me. That is the point of a debate, isn't it? As I stated in my OP, I knew I was in for a battle and making myself a target.
Since as we all know, the game really doesn't exist I am basing my responses off of the game design.
I would like to compare your examples to the real world. We have finite resources, correct? Have we run out? Well yes, of some things but certainly not everything. I would assume that the game won't be any different.
What I think are factors that need to be taken into consideration talking about resources and skill that are different than other MMOs.
-Crafting Skill is not increased by grinding for resources. -Recycling is part of the game design. (Breaking down old equipment and making something new) -Players are forced to work together in the sense of Apprenticeship Programs, and Schools in order to advance their skills. -Just because one has the resources won't mean they have the skill to do anything with it. -Skill are also expected to increase through experimentation. Rather than doing the same thing over and over. -It would take more than a lifetime to become a specialized Master Crafter.
As for the second part of your statement, the biggest flaw I see in your example is that maybe the Player can log out, but the Character remains in-game always.
I also want to touch on what Kyleran stated earlier regarding his perspective of P2W. And I have to say I am also in agreement, imagine that?.:P
My view of pay to win has always been the cash purchase of something that gives a benefit, and cannot be acquired by actually playing the game.
Actually, you aren't putting out information in an unbiased manner. You are essentially preaching to (at?) us unwashed sinners who don't think this game is anything but an attempt to get into the players' wallets. Putting a label on the situation ("Pay-to-Build and Manage") doesn't change the realities of the situation, nor the reality of the individual's perceptions of the situation.
Two major things that bother me about COE's philosophy.
Limited resources + a non-wipe head start. How many resources will be left for anyone not purchasing an early start package? How would a new character attempting to become a merchant compete with others who are established and have all the materials necessary to build items? You can't compete with US Steel without the resources to produce steel.
How will crime actually be punished? @Kyleran's barbarian hoard runs rampant, killing a lot of law-abiding characters. The leader is caught. How are they punished? Faction? They don't care. Imprisonment? They'll log out or switch to an alt. Jailed? They will log out/alt again or simply delete that character.
I simply don't agree with Caspian's idea of 'fair and equitable'.
My apologies, I totally missed this post and would like to respond. I agree I have a very strong opinion of what SBS is trying to do and could come off like I am preaching, but on the flipside so do those that disagree with me. That is the point of a debate, isn't it? As I stated in my OP, I knew I was in for a battle and making myself a target.
Since as we all know, the game really doesn't exist I am basing my responses off of the game design.
I would like to compare your examples to the real world. We have finite resources, correct? Have we run out? Well yes, of some things but certainly not everything. I would assume that the game won't be any different.
What I think are factors that need to be taken into consideration talking about resources and skill that are different than other MMOs.
-Crafting Skill is not increased by grinding for resources. -Recycling is part of the game design. (Breaking down old equipment and making something new) -Players are forced to work together in the sense of Apprenticeship Programs, and Schools in order to advance their skills. -Just because one has the resources won't mean they have the skill to do anything with it. -Skill are also expected to increase through experimentation. Rather than doing the same thing over and over. -It would take more than a lifetime to become a specialized Master Crafter.
As for the second part of your statement, the biggest flaw I see in your example is that maybe the Player can log out, but the Character remains in-game always.
I also want to touch on what Kyleran stated earlier regarding his perspective of P2W. And I have to say I am also in agreement, imagine that?.:P
My view of pay to win has always been the cash purchase of something that gives a benefit, and cannot be acquired by actually playing the game.
The ability to purchase resources, either before or after the game goes live, pretty much circumvents the entire notion of resources being 'finite'. If resources are finite, someone would know precisely how many are in the game, both now and at any point in the future, and those values would be the same.
The real world does not have finite resources. They have indefinite resources; a fixed value, but unknown or unknowable. Resources are also localized into space. Earth may be out of iron at some point in time, but that won't deplete the universe's supply of iron.
As for the bits about methods to increase skills, let's wait, shall we? Documentation, especially preliminary documentation, frequently bears no relationship to the finalized functionality. There is almost always a sizable difference between the design intent and the actual implementation. CoE isn't the first to promise unique and innovative crafting. Delivering on those ideals is another thing.
Believing the initial design objectives opens people up to all manner of misinterpretation and exaggerated expectations. Mussolini wanted to get the trains to run on time, after all.
---------- If a player logs out and the character stays in game, the character can be punished for anti-social deeds. But did the character or the player perpetrate that disruptive activity? The entire concept of punishment is based upon punitive actions to prevent future occurrences. When the player simply logs into another character and repeats the same actions, how has the punishment worked towards prevention?
Unless CoE is planning to have strict limit of 1 person to 1 in-game character, punishing a character is totally meaningless. Any concept of 'Criminal Justice' goes out the window before it starts. It just doesn't work in a game where there's an off switch.
---------- Another point, concerning the concept of acquiring something in-game versus a cash shop. Already CoE is selling things like Kingdoms and titles and what not. Can these really be attained in the game, or will some sort of 'Inheritance Laws' keep the title of 'Arch Duke of Amber' in the hands of the inheritor of the person who inherited it, or will one of @Kyleran's barbaric minions be able to usurp this title? Is this a Might-makes-right game or a game where laws of succession are enforced?
I know I'd be pretty upset if I were a barbaric minion and went to all the effort of killing the reigning Arch Duke of Amber and consolidating a power base to appoint myself Arch Duke, only to have William Whale of Mom's Visa suddenly have that title returned because his in-game ancestor bought that Title in the first place.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
This seems to be a constant where the Naysayers repeatedly claim (In every thread) that CoE is a pay-to-win game. I know I am opening a can of worms by making this post and setting myself up as a target. But I want to try to clarify the difference to those that are still learning about CoE if I can.
I laugh at P2W cries, I play GW2, where people call mount skins.. not mounts.. not mount upgrades.. just a purely cosmetic skin.. and they call it P2W.
So yah.. I don't give those cries an iota of respect anymore. I'll see it.. I'll play.. and I alone will make a decision if I think it is P2W.
Indeed any kind of cosmetic skins that's in such games is not p2w IMO either but then this game isn't offering that is it but things far far different.
The idea is still the same.. anything anyone does not want to spend money on, suddenly becomes P2W.
I am playing BDO right now, and, I have heard it's very P2W.. on my 3rd day of the trial.. and I am still am not sure where the Item Store is.. so it can't be that P2W.
In games like second life, Most of the Money in the game, was player bought, (and money in that game could go both ways), and no one cried P2W about it, mainly because real P2W games like Evony were going strong at the time.
So with CoE .. we shall see. If it turns out to be unacceptable to me. I'll just stop playing, let my character die in AFK oblivion, and move on to another game, not like I have to invest into the game if I am not having fun.
But P2W has been soo watered down these days, it's not even worth humoring it's usage anymore.
Ah no.
Sure some people take the term too far but fundamentally p2w never meant "win" as some people in this thread are trying to spin it. This isn't a board game or card game with a clear start and end to a game or match.
Like I said Occam Razor and KISS. Anything else is just sophistry.
I can understand your wanting to just try the game and see for yourself...some of us have enough experience in games to be able to see how it's going to go down by how the mechanics are suppose to work and what happening in the store or crowdfunding phase etc.
All the luck to you though.
What really annoys me though are games that are clearly p2w and depending on whales yet try to hide this or can't just own it.
I mean if some dev or company wants to make a p2w game cause "reasons" then go for it, attract those whales and make mad cash.
I mean you see it often enough in mobile and browser games and no one cares so why the big brouhaha when it comes to these more traditional rpgmmo?
I say stop spinning it and own it instead.
As someone that went through the rise of P2W games, and ended up on both sides of the credit card wars.. I assure you.. P2W.. meant exactly that, You Paid, You Won.
Which is why P2W obtained such traction in the gaming world. Now, those old browser (now morphed into mobile) games were a very pure form of Node control type games, and disputes over who owned what nodes would fuel the P2W conflicts.
Now, never has P2W meant "You won the whole game" Just like there really was no way to win at Evony, but that game was he embodiment of P2W. P2W was always based on often single conflict situations. IE: I will beat you if I spend more then you, there is nothing you can do to win, unless you in turn outspend me.
Now, I don't see CoE doing that.
I could be wrong.. and if I am.. well.. the door is open to leave.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves.
Exactly, for example, Someone might kill the King, and no doubt expend a huge amount of resources in the process, the other nobles then might opt to kill eliminate that person while they are still recovering and take over the throne for their own.
Lots can happen in a game like that.
But that then gives rise to another question: How much does the death of a King or Queen affect the commoner?
Much in the same way the rise and fall of nations had little effect on the working class in history, so too should be the case here, regardless if you pay taxes to XxxxDrizziTxxxX, or XxxGandaFxxX makes little to impact to a crafts-person, farmer or a adventurer in game.
So that whole P2W thing that people are losing their minds over might have very little impact to the vast majority of the players, who could likely play for years, and never have to care about who's banner is flying.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
Going back there, really man? That was just straight up speculation and denying the game will get done. Believe me I understand where it's coming from, but it's not really useful to talk more about it in this thread.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
Going back there, really man? That was just straight up speculation and denying the game will get done. Believe me I understand where it's coming from, but it's not really useful to talk more about it in this thread.
Please read what I said. I said wait until they let people in and see how big the world is. You made it sound like it's going to be so massive it would be impossible to rule. I think you will find the world is much easier to travel than you think (and maybe than Caspien thinks).
Nowhere did I infer the game would not get done...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
Going back there, really man? That was just straight up speculation and denying the game will get done. Believe me I understand where it's coming from, but it's not really useful to talk more about it in this thread.
Please read what I said. I said wait until they let people in and see how big the world is. You made it sound like it's going to be so massive it would be impossible to rule. I think you will find the world is much easier to travel than you think (and maybe than Caspien thinks).
Nowhere did I infer the game would not get done...
Sorry, guess I misread it. But the size of the map has already been announced and was one of their key selling features. They've since downsized it a bit but it's still planned to be massive. Or are you referring to the ability to travel around it? Last I knew there was no plans for fast travel, has that changed?
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
Going back there, really man? That was just straight up speculation and denying the game will get done. Believe me I understand where it's coming from, but it's not really useful to talk more about it in this thread.
Please read what I said. I said wait until they let people in and see how big the world is. You made it sound like it's going to be so massive it would be impossible to rule. I think you will find the world is much easier to travel than you think (and maybe than Caspien thinks).
Nowhere did I infer the game would not get done...
Sorry, guess I misread it. But the size of the map has already been announced and was one of their key selling features. They've since downsized it a bit but it's still planned to be massive. Or are you referring to the ability to travel around it? Last I knew there was no plans for fast travel, has that changed?
What is the size of the map going to be? I missed that announcement.
This seems to be a constant where the Naysayers repeatedly claim (In every thread) that CoE is a pay-to-win game. I know I am opening a can of worms by making this post and setting myself up as a target. But I want to try to clarify the difference to those that are still learning about CoE if I can.
I laugh at P2W cries, I play GW2, where people call mount skins.. not mounts.. not mount upgrades.. just a purely cosmetic skin.. and they call it P2W.
So yah.. I don't give those cries an iota of respect anymore. I'll see it.. I'll play.. and I alone will make a decision if I think it is P2W.
Indeed any kind of cosmetic skins that's in such games is not p2w IMO either but then this game isn't offering that is it but things far far different.
The idea is still the same.. anything anyone does not want to spend money on, suddenly becomes P2W.
I am playing BDO right now, and, I have heard it's very P2W.. on my 3rd day of the trial.. and I am still am not sure where the Item Store is.. so it can't be that P2W.
In games like second life, Most of the Money in the game, was player bought, (and money in that game could go both ways), and no one cried P2W about it, mainly because real P2W games like Evony were going strong at the time.
So with CoE .. we shall see. If it turns out to be unacceptable to me. I'll just stop playing, let my character die in AFK oblivion, and move on to another game, not like I have to invest into the game if I am not having fun.
But P2W has been soo watered down these days, it's not even worth humoring it's usage anymore.
Ah no.
Sure some people take the term too far but fundamentally p2w never meant "win" as some people in this thread are trying to spin it. This isn't a board game or card game with a clear start and end to a game or match.
Like I said Occam Razor and KISS. Anything else is just sophistry.
I can understand your wanting to just try the game and see for yourself...some of us have enough experience in games to be able to see how it's going to go down by how the mechanics are suppose to work and what happening in the store or crowdfunding phase etc.
All the luck to you though.
What really annoys me though are games that are clearly p2w and depending on whales yet try to hide this or can't just own it.
I mean if some dev or company wants to make a p2w game cause "reasons" then go for it, attract those whales and make mad cash.
I mean you see it often enough in mobile and browser games and no one cares so why the big brouhaha when it comes to these more traditional rpgmmo?
I say stop spinning it and own it instead.
As someone that went through the rise of P2W games, and ended up on both sides of the credit card wars.. I assure you.. P2W.. meant exactly that, You Paid, You Won.
Which is why P2W obtained such traction in the gaming world. Now, those old browser (now morphed into mobile) games were a very pure form of Node control type games, and disputes over who owned what nodes would fuel the P2W conflicts.
Now, never has P2W meant "You won the whole game" Just like there really was no way to win at Evony, but that game was he embodiment of P2W. P2W was always based on often single conflict situations. IE: I will beat you if I spend more then you, there is nothing you can do to win, unless you in turn outspend me.
Now, I don't see CoE doing that.
I could be wrong.. and if I am.. well.. the door is open to leave.
I was there when games started to go f2p and p2w etc started and I can assure you p2w was not like you're say barring some extreme cases.
P2w gained traction in the game world because it was a way to pay to get an "unfair" advantage over some scrub that couldn't afford to pay. I can assure you there were lots of wallet warriors that sucked and only managed to compete against top players because of said advantage.
I think this will be the same thing in COE.
Tbh I find it hilarious you compare COE to Evony and other such crap....lol
Imo COE is set up more to akin how Revival was to be.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
How about we wait until the game lets people in. Pretty sure you will be able to walk across the world in a few hours at most. That's not quite the Roman Empire...
Going back there, really man? That was just straight up speculation and denying the game will get done. Believe me I understand where it's coming from, but it's not really useful to talk more about it in this thread.
Please read what I said. I said wait until they let people in and see how big the world is. You made it sound like it's going to be so massive it would be impossible to rule. I think you will find the world is much easier to travel than you think (and maybe than Caspien thinks).
Nowhere did I infer the game would not get done...
Sorry, guess I misread it. But the size of the map has already been announced and was one of their key selling features. They've since downsized it a bit but it's still planned to be massive. Or are you referring to the ability to travel around it? Last I knew there was no plans for fast travel, has that changed?
The continent is roughly the size of Madison Wisconsin and suburbs Not quite the Roman Empire
For reference it's about 18432km^2. Italy, not the whole Roman empire.. just Italy today.. is over 300,000km^2
So yeah... you are going to fit 6 Kingdoms into a "Continent" the size of Madison Wisconsin + Suburbs.
Pretty sure that can be managed by 1 "Emperor"...
It will be interesting to see walking/running speed. Remember.. "Elyrian" time is much faster than our time. I think it's 2.8 hours of our time = 1 day Elyrian time.
In summary... as I said.. my expectation is that you can get from one side of the continent to the other in a few hours (max). We shall see.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This seems to be a constant where the Naysayers repeatedly claim (In every thread) that CoE is a pay-to-win game. I know I am opening a can of worms by making this post and setting myself up as a target. But I want to try to clarify the difference to those that are still learning about CoE if I can.
I laugh at P2W cries, I play GW2, where people call mount skins.. not mounts.. not mount upgrades.. just a purely cosmetic skin.. and they call it P2W.
So yah.. I don't give those cries an iota of respect anymore. I'll see it.. I'll play.. and I alone will make a decision if I think it is P2W.
Indeed any kind of cosmetic skins that's in such games is not p2w IMO either but then this game isn't offering that is it but things far far different.
The idea is still the same.. anything anyone does not want to spend money on, suddenly becomes P2W.
I am playing BDO right now, and, I have heard it's very P2W.. on my 3rd day of the trial.. and I am still am not sure where the Item Store is.. so it can't be that P2W.
In games like second life, Most of the Money in the game, was player bought, (and money in that game could go both ways), and no one cried P2W about it, mainly because real P2W games like Evony were going strong at the time.
So with CoE .. we shall see. If it turns out to be unacceptable to me. I'll just stop playing, let my character die in AFK oblivion, and move on to another game, not like I have to invest into the game if I am not having fun.
But P2W has been soo watered down these days, it's not even worth humoring it's usage anymore.
Ah no.
Sure some people take the term too far but fundamentally p2w never meant "win" as some people in this thread are trying to spin it. This isn't a board game or card game with a clear start and end to a game or match.
Like I said Occam Razor and KISS. Anything else is just sophistry.
I can understand your wanting to just try the game and see for yourself...some of us have enough experience in games to be able to see how it's going to go down by how the mechanics are suppose to work and what happening in the store or crowdfunding phase etc.
All the luck to you though.
What really annoys me though are games that are clearly p2w and depending on whales yet try to hide this or can't just own it.
I mean if some dev or company wants to make a p2w game cause "reasons" then go for it, attract those whales and make mad cash.
I mean you see it often enough in mobile and browser games and no one cares so why the big brouhaha when it comes to these more traditional rpgmmo?
I say stop spinning it and own it instead.
As someone that went through the rise of P2W games, and ended up on both sides of the credit card wars.. I assure you.. P2W.. meant exactly that, You Paid, You Won.
Which is why P2W obtained such traction in the gaming world. Now, those old browser (now morphed into mobile) games were a very pure form of Node control type games, and disputes over who owned what nodes would fuel the P2W conflicts.
Now, never has P2W meant "You won the whole game" Just like there really was no way to win at Evony, but that game was he embodiment of P2W. P2W was always based on often single conflict situations. IE: I will beat you if I spend more then you, there is nothing you can do to win, unless you in turn outspend me.
Now, I don't see CoE doing that.
I could be wrong.. and if I am.. well.. the door is open to leave.
I was there when games started to go f2p and p2w etc started and I can assure you p2w was not like you're say barring some extreme cases.
P2w gained traction in the game world because it was a way to pay to get an "unfair" advantage over some scrub that couldn't afford to pay. I can assure you there were lots of wallet warriors that sucked and only managed to compete against top players because of said advantage.
I think this will be the same thing in COE.
Tbh I find it hilarious you compare COE to Evony and other such crap....lol
Imo COE is set up more to akin how Revival was to be.
Interesting as the developer of Revival (Snipehunter) is now the developer for CoE...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves.
Exactly, for example, Someone might kill the King, and no doubt expend a huge amount of resources in the process, the other nobles then might opt to kill eliminate that person while they are still recovering and take over the throne for their own.
Lots can happen in a game like that.
But that then gives rise to another question: How much does the death of a King or Queen affect the commoner?
Much in the same way the rise and fall of nations had little effect on the working class in history, so too should be the case here, regardless if you pay taxes to XxxxDrizziTxxxX, or XxxGandaFxxX makes little to impact to a crafts-person, farmer or a adventurer in game.
So that whole P2W thing that people are losing their minds over might have very little impact to the vast majority of the players, who could likely play for years, and never have to care about who's banner is flying.
But what if the kings all got together and decide to raise taxes to ridiculous levels as a group (much like OPEC)? Where will you place your house then? Wont they have an advantage if they do? What if the kings all decide to no longer pay for police/military presence and allow the bad guys to raid and pilage as long as they hand over a cut of what they take in?
There are just too many ways the system can be abused to give the kings a large advantage ingame.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves. In my opinion though, Kings and kingdoms will anyway fall when the bigger unions start to work together, slowly crushing the smaller kings and unions. Happens every faction vs faction game I know about, where space is limited and resources dependant of the space. Also consider easygoers will always move where they can go easy, so slackers and the like are determinated to end up with the biggest force, hence weakening the other factions further until they crumble due to low pop and small land. Maybe better stay a roaming barbarian at that point, and instead focus on getting some builders who can supply Kyleran on his roaming
That's mostly right (but Kyleran as king? You trying to restart the mongol hordes?) although I don't think you're taking into account the intended size of the game world. A single county is something like half of Skyrim and a kingdom might have 60+ counties (I don't remember the exact range, sorry). My point is that nobody in their right mind would want to try to rule over and manage a land mass of that size. It comes down to the problem the Romans had: logistics would fell any empire that got too ambitious.
And... in most every game, take shadowbane, the ruling empire eventually always develops enough enemies to take them down and they fold. Thats the fun of it, finally swaying the tide and returning the favor vs whoever stepped on your toes at the start.
This seems to be a constant where the Naysayers repeatedly claim (In every thread) that CoE is a pay-to-win game. I know I am opening a can of worms by making this post and setting myself up as a target. But I want to try to clarify the difference to those that are still learning about CoE if I can.
I laugh at P2W cries, I play GW2, where people call mount skins.. not mounts.. not mount upgrades.. just a purely cosmetic skin.. and they call it P2W.
So yah.. I don't give those cries an iota of respect anymore. I'll see it.. I'll play.. and I alone will make a decision if I think it is P2W.
Indeed any kind of cosmetic skins that's in such games is not p2w IMO either but then this game isn't offering that is it but things far far different.
The idea is still the same.. anything anyone does not want to spend money on, suddenly becomes P2W.
I am playing BDO right now, and, I have heard it's very P2W.. on my 3rd day of the trial.. and I am still am not sure where the Item Store is.. so it can't be that P2W.
In games like second life, Most of the Money in the game, was player bought, (and money in that game could go both ways), and no one cried P2W about it, mainly because real P2W games like Evony were going strong at the time.
So with CoE .. we shall see. If it turns out to be unacceptable to me. I'll just stop playing, let my character die in AFK oblivion, and move on to another game, not like I have to invest into the game if I am not having fun.
But P2W has been soo watered down these days, it's not even worth humoring it's usage anymore.
Ah no.
Sure some people take the term too far but fundamentally p2w never meant "win" as some people in this thread are trying to spin it. This isn't a board game or card game with a clear start and end to a game or match.
Like I said Occam Razor and KISS. Anything else is just sophistry.
I can understand your wanting to just try the game and see for yourself...some of us have enough experience in games to be able to see how it's going to go down by how the mechanics are suppose to work and what happening in the store or crowdfunding phase etc.
All the luck to you though.
What really annoys me though are games that are clearly p2w and depending on whales yet try to hide this or can't just own it.
I mean if some dev or company wants to make a p2w game cause "reasons" then go for it, attract those whales and make mad cash.
I mean you see it often enough in mobile and browser games and no one cares so why the big brouhaha when it comes to these more traditional rpgmmo?
I say stop spinning it and own it instead.
As someone that went through the rise of P2W games, and ended up on both sides of the credit card wars.. I assure you.. P2W.. meant exactly that, You Paid, You Won.
Which is why P2W obtained such traction in the gaming world. Now, those old browser (now morphed into mobile) games were a very pure form of Node control type games, and disputes over who owned what nodes would fuel the P2W conflicts.
Now, never has P2W meant "You won the whole game" Just like there really was no way to win at Evony, but that game was he embodiment of P2W. P2W was always based on often single conflict situations. IE: I will beat you if I spend more then you, there is nothing you can do to win, unless you in turn outspend me.
Now, I don't see CoE doing that.
I could be wrong.. and if I am.. well.. the door is open to leave.
I was there when games started to go f2p and p2w etc started and I can assure you p2w was not like you're say barring some extreme cases.
P2w gained traction in the game world because it was a way to pay to get an "unfair" advantage over some scrub that couldn't afford to pay. I can assure you there were lots of wallet warriors that sucked and only managed to compete against top players because of said advantage.
I think this will be the same thing in COE.
Tbh I find it hilarious you compare COE to Evony and other such crap....lol
Imo COE is set up more to akin how Revival was to be.
Evony and "other such crap" (IE: Browser and Mobile games) are the originators of P2W and where the term stemmed from.
Because in those games you could Pay to Win a fight. it was exactly what I am saying it was, it was rampant, and it was very common. Hence the outrage.
That toilet water you are passing off whisky was never the real deal, and didn't come till much after P2W had built it's stigma and traction in the game community.
That is why is called "Pay to Win" and not "Cash Advantage"
Also, very Few MMOs were using anything remotely like a F2P model when P2W was building it's massive reputation in the game world.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
About that last part, and correct me if I am wrong; In theory, yes Kyleran can kill the king and take over the throne, BUT; In order to be officialy appointed ruler with the mechanics it involves, the other nobility would have to agree about Kyleran being new king. Chances are (like IRL) unless the king is a big idiot and a douchebag as well, the nobility wont let him or his line fall, unless they plan on taking over that position themselves.
Exactly, for example, Someone might kill the King, and no doubt expend a huge amount of resources in the process, the other nobles then might opt to kill eliminate that person while they are still recovering and take over the throne for their own.
Lots can happen in a game like that.
But that then gives rise to another question: How much does the death of a King or Queen affect the commoner?
Much in the same way the rise and fall of nations had little effect on the working class in history, so too should be the case here, regardless if you pay taxes to XxxxDrizziTxxxX, or XxxGandaFxxX makes little to impact to a crafts-person, farmer or a adventurer in game.
So that whole P2W thing that people are losing their minds over might have very little impact to the vast majority of the players, who could likely play for years, and never have to care about who's banner is flying.
But what if the kings all got together and decide to raise taxes to ridiculous levels as a group (much like OPEC)? Where will you place your house then? Wont they have an advantage if they do? What if the kings all decide to no longer pay for police/military presence and allow the bad guys to raid and pilage as long as they hand over a cut of what they take in?
There are just too many ways the system can be abused to give the kings a large advantage ingame.
They are Kings/Queens, Dukes/Duchesses, Etc.. like anyone born of noble blood, into wealth and land ownership, they will have an advantage from the start.
What is stopping them? Nothing, just like real life. There is nothing stopping nations from unifying, like United Nations, there is nothing stopping despots from being cruel and evil, again, just like real life. There is also nothing stopping people from rebelling, killing the nobles, and putting their own puppet in place.. again.. just like real life.
I am sure some people will abuse their power, I am sure there will be issues, and I am sure just like EVE, there even might be million dollar battles lost.
Can't wait to read about it.
But see, no one can abuse me in a game, unless I let them. Since I am not required to play the game if I don't like the situation, I can simply walk away from it. At any time, for any reason at all.. even simple stuff like.. If I think the models are ugly for example. (and truth be told, they do look kinda fugly compared to BDO and GW2)
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Evony and "other such crap" (IE: Browser and Mobile games) are the originators of P2W and where the term stemmed from.
Because in those games you could Pay to Win a fight. it was exactly what I am saying it was, it was rampant, and it was very common. Hence the outrage.
That toilet water you are passing off whisky was never the real deal, and didn't come till much after P2W had built it's stigma and traction in the game community.
That is why is called "Pay to Win" and not "Cash Advantage"
Also, very Few MMOs were using anything remotely like a F2P model when P2W was building it's massive reputation in the game world.
Even back then there were arguments on what p2w was and that the point I am making. Now it's somekind of BS to say mobile gaming is what started p2w.
P2w comes from f2p games and mobile gaming, while mobile games took it to the next step and went hog wild with it you are not going to peddle to me that mobile game was a huge thing back then and sole creator of p2w... that's just you trying to fit shit in your narrative like the rest of the spin doctors in this thread.
F2p in mmo was late 1990 early 2000 same as mobile but mobile was not as popular as standard mmos, f2p or not, till later on.
Tell you what though KISS and Occams Razor... not one of you spin doctors will admit or look at these two things as it kills your spinnings and is probably why you guys keep ignoring them.
Far far too busy over complicating stuff to try and prove a negative.
I was there when games started to go f2p and p2w etc started and I can assure you p2w was not like you're say barring some extreme cases.
P2w gained traction in the game world because it was a way to pay to get an "unfair" advantage over some scrub that couldn't afford to pay. I can assure you there were lots of wallet warriors that sucked and only managed to compete against top players because of said advantage.
I think this will be the same thing in COE.
Tbh I find it hilarious you compare COE to Evony and other such crap....lol
Imo COE is set up more to akin how Revival was to be.
Interesting as the developer of Revival (Snipehunter) is now the developer for CoE...
Yes Like I have said before this game and how it is being developed as well as the community it has acquired reminds a whole whole lot of the community in PFO and Revival.
They also were very very good at spinning things and making threads pretty much like these ones.
I am very very curious to see how COE fares compared to these two other games.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Evony and "other such crap" (IE: Browser and Mobile games) are the originators of P2W and where the term stemmed from.
Because in those games you could Pay to Win a fight. it was exactly what I am saying it was, it was rampant, and it was very common. Hence the outrage.
That toilet water you are passing off whisky was never the real deal, and didn't come till much after P2W had built it's stigma and traction in the game community.
That is why is called "Pay to Win" and not "Cash Advantage"
Also, very Few MMOs were using anything remotely like a F2P model when P2W was building it's massive reputation in the game world.
Even back then there were arguments on what p2w was and that the point I am making. Now it's somekind of BS to say mobile gaming is what started p2w.
P2w comes from f2p games and mobile gaming, while mobile games took it to the next step and went hog wild with it you are not going to peddle to me that mobile game was a huge thing back then and sole creator of p2w... that just you trying to fit shit in your narrative like the rest of the spin doctors in this thread.
F2p in mmo was late 1990 early 2000 same as mobile but mobile was not as popular as standard mmo f2p or not till later on.
Do you even read what you are saying?
Yah, no duh browser and mobile games owned that shit like pimp in high heels and a stupid hat, hence why the term was born there, and not some wimpy little game that gave you an advantage if you spent money.
P2W, said perfectly what it was, it was "paying to win" that is why the term stuck, gained traction, and outrage, leading it to become a huge deal in the game world and move on to other games.
Also, F2P MMO's didn't become a thing till late 2006.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Evony and "other such crap" (IE: Browser and Mobile games) are the originators of P2W and where the term stemmed from.
Because in those games you could Pay to Win a fight. it was exactly what I am saying it was, it was rampant, and it was very common. Hence the outrage.
That toilet water you are passing off whisky was never the real deal, and didn't come till much after P2W had built it's stigma and traction in the game community.
That is why is called "Pay to Win" and not "Cash Advantage"
Also, very Few MMOs were using anything remotely like a F2P model when P2W was building it's massive reputation in the game world.
Even back then there were arguments on what p2w was and that the point I am making. Now it's somekind of BS to say mobile gaming is what started p2w.
P2w comes from f2p games and mobile gaming, while mobile games took it to the next step and went hog wild with it you are not going to peddle to me that mobile game was a huge thing back then and sole creator of p2w... that just you trying to fit shit in your narrative like the rest of the spin doctors in this thread.
F2p in mmo was late 1990 early 2000 same as mobile but mobile was not as popular as standard mmo f2p or not till later on.
Do you even read what you are saying?
Yah, no duh browser and mobile games owned that shit like pimp in high heels and a stupid hat, hence why the term was born there, and not some wimpy little game that gave you an advantage if you spent money.
P2W, said perfectly what it was, it was "paying to win" that is why the term stuck, gained traction, and outrage, leading it to become a huge deal in the game world and move on to other games.
Also, F2P MMO's didn't become a thing till late 2006.
Do you read what you are writing? The big damned issue with these threads is how you guys want to confuse the issue on what winning is?
Lets not be daft some games like cards or games that are match based have winners and loser but many games are not in that kind of format, this was also true back then, and they also had p2w.
Some people just like to be obtuse and try to wordsmith and never bloody mind the meaning or intent of the meaning of the word.
This is the fundamental issues you guys have.
Lets take it a step further. I will even go so far as to say I won't argue about the origin of the damned word and give you reason, but realize the meaning to the damned word has evolved yet its meaning it still the same.
There term had no choice to evolve as the industry and games it is used in evolve.
Some of you though would rather we have terms like pay to win, pay to advantage, pay 2 advance etc etc just so you can all claim hey it's not p2w blablabla when really these terms all fit under p2w as they are just different degrees of the same thing.
To sum up, anyone with an ounce of common sense and honesty COE is p2w and there no debate about it.
Anyone trying to claim otherwise is overly emotionally attached to the game and clinging to some old possible meaning of the term as they can't admit what's staring them in the face.
When I came into this thread I thought you were just some objective observer that had no skin in the game...boy was I wrong ...lol
While some of the bigger AAA games jumped on the bandwagon a little later in 2006 they were by no means the first.
ABout f2p:
The free-to-play business model in online games was created by Nexon in Korea.[9][10] The first game to use it was Nexon's QuizQuiz, released in October 1999, and made by Lee Seungchan, who would go on to create MapleStory.[11]
The free-to-play model originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s, coming from a series of highly successful MMOs targeted towards children and casual gamers, including Furcadia, Neopets, RuneScape,[12][13] MapleStory, and text-based dungeons such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands.[14] Known for producing innovative titles, small independent developers also continue to release free-to-play games.
Now yah, PW has evolved, into a toothless slug that holds no bite or value anymore.
Hell, in GW2, I have seen Skins (yes, just Cosmetic Skins) called P2W, because people did not want to spend money for them, and felt that if they called them P2W they would either drop the price or put them in the game for free.
So, yah.. that's what P2W means today.. it's devolved into a pointless turd floating down the river that angry Nerd-Ragers fling at anything they don't want to spend money on.
So, how does that bring us to CoE and P2W.. well.
Ok, if it's P2W, what do I win if I pay?
Seems to me, that if I spend enough, all I win is a burden.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Now yah, PW has evolved, into a toothless slug that holds no bite or value anymore.
Hell, in GW2, I have seen Skins (yes, just Cosmetic Skins) called P2W, because people did not want to spend money for them, and felt that if they called them P2W they would either drop the price or put them in the game for free.
So, yah.. that's what P2W means today.. it's devolved into a pointless turd floating down the river that angry Nerd-Ragers fling at anything they don't want to spend money on.
So, how does that bring us to CoE and P2W.. well.
Ok, if it's P2W, what do I win if I pay?
Seems to me, that if I spend enough, all I win is a burden.
Yes lets get something clear just because some people claim cosmetics are p2w it doesn't invalidate the other stuff that is NOT cosmetics or make those not p2w.
You can bitch and moan about some people crying that cosmetics being p2w, I don't think cosmetics are p2w either btw, that doesn't make your argument any more more valid or have diddly squat to do with what is being said in this thread.
In COE we are definitely not talking about cosmetics [mod edit]
Post edited by Vaross on
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Comments
Since as we all know, the game really doesn't exist I am basing my responses off of the game design.
I would like to compare your examples to the real world. We have finite resources, correct? Have we run out? Well yes, of some things but certainly not everything. I would assume that the game won't be any different.
What I think are factors that need to be taken into consideration talking about resources and skill that are different than other MMOs.
-Crafting Skill is not increased by grinding for resources.
-Recycling is part of the game design. (Breaking down old equipment and making something new)
-Players are forced to work together in the sense of Apprenticeship Programs, and Schools in order to advance their skills.
-Just because one has the resources won't mean they have the skill to do anything with it.
-Skill are also expected to increase through experimentation. Rather than doing the same thing over and over.
-It would take more than a lifetime to become a specialized Master Crafter.
As for the second part of your statement, the biggest flaw I see in your example is that maybe the Player can log out, but the Character remains in-game always.
I also want to touch on what Kyleran stated earlier regarding his perspective of P2W. And I have to say I am also in agreement, imagine that?.:P
My view of pay to win has always been the cash purchase of something that gives a benefit, and cannot be acquired by actually playing the game.
The real world does not have finite resources. They have indefinite resources; a fixed value, but unknown or unknowable. Resources are also localized into space. Earth may be out of iron at some point in time, but that won't deplete the universe's supply of iron.
As for the bits about methods to increase skills, let's wait, shall we? Documentation, especially preliminary documentation, frequently bears no relationship to the finalized functionality. There is almost always a sizable difference between the design intent and the actual implementation. CoE isn't the first to promise unique and innovative crafting. Delivering on those ideals is another thing.
Believing the initial design objectives opens people up to all manner of misinterpretation and exaggerated expectations. Mussolini wanted to get the trains to run on time, after all.
----------
If a player logs out and the character stays in game, the character can be punished for anti-social deeds. But did the character or the player perpetrate that disruptive activity? The entire concept of punishment is based upon punitive actions to prevent future occurrences. When the player simply logs into another character and repeats the same actions, how has the punishment worked towards prevention?
Unless CoE is planning to have strict limit of 1 person to 1 in-game character, punishing a character is totally meaningless. Any concept of 'Criminal Justice' goes out the window before it starts. It just doesn't work in a game where there's an off switch.
----------
Another point, concerning the concept of acquiring something in-game versus a cash shop. Already CoE is selling things like Kingdoms and titles and what not. Can these really be attained in the game, or will some sort of 'Inheritance Laws' keep the title of 'Arch Duke of Amber' in the hands of the inheritor of the person who inherited it, or will one of @Kyleran's barbaric minions be able to usurp this title? Is this a Might-makes-right game or a game where laws of succession are enforced?
I know I'd be pretty upset if I were a barbaric minion and went to all the effort of killing the reigning Arch Duke of Amber and consolidating a power base to appoint myself Arch Duke, only to have William Whale of Mom's Visa suddenly have that title returned because his in-game ancestor bought that Title in the first place.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Which is why P2W obtained such traction in the gaming world. Now, those old browser (now morphed into mobile) games were a very pure form of Node control type games, and disputes over who owned what nodes would fuel the P2W conflicts.
Now, never has P2W meant "You won the whole game" Just like there really was no way to win at Evony, but that game was he embodiment of P2W. P2W was always based on often single conflict situations. IE: I will beat you if I spend more then you, there is nothing you can do to win, unless you in turn outspend me.
Now, I don't see CoE doing that.
I could be wrong.. and if I am.. well.. the door is open to leave.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Lots can happen in a game like that.
But that then gives rise to another question: How much does the death of a King or Queen affect the commoner?
Much in the same way the rise and fall of nations had little effect on the working class in history, so too should be the case here, regardless if you pay taxes to XxxxDrizziTxxxX, or XxxGandaFxxX makes little to impact to a crafts-person, farmer or a adventurer in game.
So that whole P2W thing that people are losing their minds over might have very little impact to the vast majority of the players, who could likely play for years, and never have to care about who's banner is flying.
Nowhere did I infer the game would not get done...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
P2w gained traction in the game world because it was a way to pay to get an "unfair" advantage over some scrub that couldn't afford to pay. I can assure you there were lots of wallet warriors that sucked and only managed to compete against top players because of said advantage.
I think this will be the same thing in COE.
Tbh I find it hilarious you compare COE to Evony and other such crap....lol
Imo COE is set up more to akin how Revival was to be.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
The continent is roughly the size of Madison Wisconsin and suburbs
Not quite the Roman Empire
For reference it's about 18432km^2. Italy, not the whole Roman empire.. just Italy today.. is over 300,000km^2
So yeah... you are going to fit 6 Kingdoms into a "Continent" the size of Madison Wisconsin + Suburbs.
Pretty sure that can be managed by 1 "Emperor"...
It will be interesting to see walking/running speed. Remember.. "Elyrian" time is much faster than our time. I think it's 2.8 hours of our time = 1 day Elyrian time.
In summary... as I said.. my expectation is that you can get from one side of the continent to the other in a few hours (max). We shall see.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
What if the kings all decide to no longer pay for police/military presence and allow the bad guys to raid and pilage as long as they hand over a cut of what they take in?
There are just too many ways the system can be abused to give the kings a large advantage ingame.
Because in those games you could Pay to Win a fight. it was exactly what I am saying it was, it was rampant, and it was very common. Hence the outrage.
That toilet water you are passing off whisky was never the real deal, and didn't come till much after P2W had built it's stigma and traction in the game community.
That is why is called "Pay to Win" and not "Cash Advantage"
Also, very Few MMOs were using anything remotely like a F2P model when P2W was building it's massive reputation in the game world.
What is stopping them? Nothing, just like real life. There is nothing stopping nations from unifying, like United Nations, there is nothing stopping despots from being cruel and evil, again, just like real life. There is also nothing stopping people from rebelling, killing the nobles, and putting their own puppet in place.. again.. just like real life.
I am sure some people will abuse their power, I am sure there will be issues, and I am sure just like EVE, there even might be million dollar battles lost.
Can't wait to read about it.
But see, no one can abuse me in a game, unless I let them. Since I am not required to play the game if I don't like the situation, I can simply walk away from it. At any time, for any reason at all.. even simple stuff like.. If I think the models are ugly for example. (and truth be told, they do look kinda fugly compared to BDO and GW2)
P2w comes from f2p games and mobile gaming, while mobile games took it to the next step and went hog wild with it you are not going to peddle to me that mobile game was a huge thing back then and sole creator of p2w... that's just you trying to fit shit in your narrative like the rest of the spin doctors in this thread.
F2p in mmo was late 1990 early 2000 same as mobile but mobile was not as popular as standard mmos, f2p or not, till later on.
Tell you what though KISS and Occams Razor... not one of you spin doctors will admit or look at these two things as it kills your spinnings and is probably why you guys keep ignoring them.
Far far too busy over complicating stuff to try and prove a negative.
Yes Like I have said before this game and how it is being developed as well as the community it has acquired reminds a whole whole lot of the community in PFO and Revival.
They also were very very good at spinning things and making threads pretty much like these ones.
I am very very curious to see how COE fares compared to these two other games.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Yah, no duh browser and mobile games owned that shit like pimp in high heels and a stupid hat, hence why the term was born there, and not some wimpy little game that gave you an advantage if you spent money.
P2W, said perfectly what it was, it was "paying to win" that is why the term stuck, gained traction, and outrage, leading it to become a huge deal in the game world and move on to other games.
Also, F2P MMO's didn't become a thing till late 2006.
Lets not be daft some games like cards or games that are match based have winners and loser but many games are not in that kind of format, this was also true back then, and they also had p2w.
Some people just like to be obtuse and try to wordsmith and never bloody mind the meaning or intent of the meaning of the word.
This is the fundamental issues you guys have.
Lets take it a step further. I will even go so far as to say I won't argue about the origin of the damned word and give you reason, but realize the meaning to the damned word has evolved yet its meaning it still the same.
There term had no choice to evolve as the industry and games it is used in evolve.
Some of you though would rather we have terms like pay to win, pay to advantage, pay 2 advance etc etc just so you can all claim hey it's not p2w blablabla when really these terms all fit under p2w as they are just different degrees of the same thing.
To sum up, anyone with an ounce of common sense and honesty COE is p2w and there no debate about it.
Anyone trying to claim otherwise is overly emotionally attached to the game and clinging to some old possible meaning of the term as they can't admit what's staring them in the face.
When I came into this thread I thought you were just some objective observer that had no skin in the game...boy was I wrong ...lol
While some of the bigger AAA games jumped on the bandwagon a little later in 2006 they were by no means the first.
ABout f2p:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play#History
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
History of MMO's.
Now yah, PW has evolved, into a toothless slug that holds no bite or value anymore.
Hell, in GW2, I have seen Skins (yes, just Cosmetic Skins) called P2W, because people did not want to spend money for them, and felt that if they called them P2W they would either drop the price or put them in the game for free.
So, yah.. that's what P2W means today.. it's devolved into a pointless turd floating down the river that angry Nerd-Ragers fling at anything they don't want to spend money on.
So, how does that bring us to CoE and P2W.. well.
Ok, if it's P2W, what do I win if I pay?
Seems to me, that if I spend enough, all I win is a burden.
You can bitch and moan about some people crying that cosmetics being p2w, I don't think cosmetics are p2w either btw, that doesn't make your argument any more more valid or have diddly squat to do with what is being said in this thread.
In COE we are definitely not talking about cosmetics [mod edit]
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
This is what happens when you don't invest in education, you start coming up with stupid analogies and anecdotes.