The future of PWI

Brillance - Raging Tide

I would just like to note that there would be no reason for fashion to become free. No reason to do away with the Boutique completely, or the Bidding Hall for that matter - just some of the items they contain. Cosmetics, as other games call them, never broke a game and do generate 'gravy income'. This game has the best potential to profit through that.

It would be nice to open their profit on cosmetics, by making them available to more people than they are as when they are only being pushed through packs. Just like it would be nice to open the game up to more players. Im sure merchants would enjoy having more people to buy from them, but would stubbornly reject having more access for their customers on the Boutique. Could call that, "wanting to have my cake and eat it too." Sorry merchants would need to resell items for a little less profit for individual items - but they would make that up and surpasse it by having tons more people to resell to, just like PW ultimately would. That's called, "bulk/volume sales".

People cannot claim they "miss new players" if they are unwilling to change the game to do away with what is keeping them away. Advertisement alone will not change what is keeping players away whatsoever, and will only create more 'haters' once they realize what the real deal currently is. Btw, Im not a hater. I like the game alot, but it doesnt want me to enjoy playing it anymore. Casual gamers out-number professional gamers by leaps and bounds, and they dont want a second-job game for their recreation. Most of them cannot afford a money-pit game either. *shrugs*

With a change, and Advertisement, the advertisement would have to include a PR (public relations campaign), to change people's preception of this game still being pay-to-win, should a change occur.

The select few who ran right out and purchased the latest gear change should know that that is the price you pay for being "the first kid on the block" with those new items, and they have enjoyed that status for over 4 years at least, as I remember a lot of people quitting over the release of R8, and its approximate base price to obtain of about $300 for the rep. I wasnt around for its release I dont think, but I remember many complaing posts on the forums about it. New players still came on the game in mass back then though - just like me. Now we are at R9T3, with only a few random stragglers coming onto the servers.

'The first kid on the block' status would continue for them until others grind instances enough to catch up, which given the pinchon many have of being able to grab every drop if they wanted could take years.

Those that actually did grind their gear would not lose the prestige of posting on the forums that they worked hard for months, years or whatever to get what they have.

Sure, a few may quit over a change, but there is no better time to make a change than when you only have the bulk of the remaining playerbase logging in on weekends for TW to begin with.

Bhavyy - Raging Tide

Supply and demand dictates that since there's a practically infinite supply of gold generated from cash shoppers and since the most coins in game are generated by botting or quest rewards (which is not a lot in comparison) that gold should be a lot cheaper than it is since coins is what is in demand. Somehow PWI managed to flip the situation economically and now we're all getting ***** b:victory

The game is not dead but there arent any new players coming in and there are no new efforts to get new players joining, it's mostly about keeping the currently playing cash shoppers playing for as long as possible.

PWI is a business afterall. It's good money, but poorly run.

Brillance - Raging Tide

Bhavyy - Raging Tide wrote: »

Supply and demand dictates that since there's a practically infinite supply of gold generated from cash shoppers and since the most coins in game are generated by botting or quest rewards (which is not a lot in comparison) that gold should be a lot cheaper than it is since coins is what is in demand. Somehow PWI managed to flip the situation economically and now we're all getting ***** b:victory

The game is not dead but there arent any new players coming in and there are no new efforts to get new players joining, it's mostly about keeping the currently playing cash shoppers playing for as long as possible.

PWI is a business afterall. It's good money, but poorly run.

I see what you are saying Bhavvy. If PW thinks their supply of income is just fine, then everyone needs to just suck it up. If the heavy CSers that already have everything are all PW feels they need, then cool ya know.

I have to suck it up and move on to something else, and they have suck it up and continue with pumping money into a game they feel for some reason is poorly run, and not providing them proper customer service for their purchases. (I also am not accusing you of being a heavy CSer...ijs)

Bhavyy - Raging Tide

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

I see what you are saying Bhavvy. If PW thinks their supply of income is just fine, then everyone needs to just suck it up. If the heavy CSers that already have everything are all PW feels they need, then cool ya know.

I have to suck it up and move on to something else, and they have suck it up and continue with pumping money into a game they feel for some reason is poorly run, and not providing them proper customer service for their purchases. (I also am not accusing you of being a heavy CSer...ijs)

Not that there's anything wrong with being a heavy CSer, but I am not FYI. I have cash shopped but mostly to waste it on fashion or things that I never really used like Celestial schim etc.
I discovered there are ways to overcome the way PWI does things and use them to your advantage however along with many other people.
There are ways of making enough coin to have end game everything and what not. It just depends on how much effort you're willing to put into it and how smart you are with your money. No one HAS to be a heavy cash shopper. In a strange paradoxical way it is the heavy cash shoppers that are keeping this game going but killing it at the same time by feeding the PWE greed b:laugh

ovenusarmanio

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Because something does not cost money does not make it free. The cost shifts from real life money to time in game, which is more or less the same as it is now for some of us. Instead of spending money on my R9r3 I spent time, instead of spending money on my refines I spent time. It doesn't rob people of anything, the gear hasn't lost its value or utility. The only difference is that people no longer have the option to spend their money on their gear, only their time. How PWE would put cash shop items into the game in a way that would make it around the same level of difficulty to obtain as it is now I can't really say, but should the game ever switch to a P2P model, or should any game for that matter, people wouldn't be robbed at all. They may feel robbed due to having spent money when they didn't need to, but the reality would be that they never needed to at all. They could have simply used their time instead of money, and assuming the difficulty of getting the gear remains roughly the same they would actually be getting out ahead of any newcomers since the gear or items would be harder for most people to obtain due to a lack of time.

Of course... this does pose the question, is changing in game content rather than game model robbing people of their gear's value? It happens often, and once new content comes out older gear becomes obsolete or less useful. People who invested in Nirvana lost the value of their gear over the course of a month, gear that was once hundreds of millions became worth 100m for the entire set. Nobody really complained about being robbed, it was accepted and people moved on with the new content, people basically lost hundreds of millions in gear value and the game didn't end. Should the game change models I imagine that as long as the gear takes the same amount of time to get nobody would really outrage, seeing as spending money was always optional and the gear's value in game would remain the same.

If they were stupid about it people would definitely quit, but I don't see an outrage as long as it was handled okay. Though, to be fair that assumes the game would be worth paying for on a monthly basis, which it isn't.

Nice strawman but I never once implied that because something is free, that there is no cost to obtaining it. The OP wants everyone, as part of their pay-to-play model to have the same gear as everyone else. One of the purposes of buying r999 as opposed to just g16 is to give yourself an advantage over the masses. If every single person has r999, that advantage is gone. And there is a functional loss in utility. When newer gear comes out, it is different. If you want an advantage, you can still gain one. In addition, you'll still have the advantage over all the people in the all the different gear types you paid to have an advantage over, you are just no longer the top. Finally, price fixes on objects within the game are not guaranteed. You cannot reasonably expect them to keep all items within their store the same price forever. You cannot reasonably expect to have the best forever, eventually older stuff is outclassed by new things. It happens in games and in life. That is different than telling you this is a free-to-play game and charging you thousands of dollars to be elite and then turning around and changing the type of game being played. So not only did you lose out on value of your gear, which while understandably upsetting will happen eventually....but you are suddenly being charged more money to even have access to the goods for which you paid. Which is NOT the case when new things are added. You are getting a less desirable product for a higher price, after the fact of purchase. That is enough to make many people quit. It would make me quit. In addition, it changes the type of game being offered. Because the monetization model changes way more about a game than a price increase. To the OP, those changes are desirable. Nobody is going to request a price increase for no functional reason, there is a benefit to the price increase for those that like the p2p model of game, that is not possible with f2p games due to the way they must monetize their goods.

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

People cannot claim they "miss new players" if they are unwilling to change the game to do away with what is keeping them away.

There are many new customers aren't drawn away by the p2w aspect because that's, unfortunately, becoming more and more standard with the f2p industry, that they could keep. They drive them away by having the game being new player hostile. Tons of new people do not make it far enough to even have those type of concerns. This game would require a lot more than just tweaking endgame to fix that. And this would cause a lot of people who previously picked pwi because it was a f2p game, from coming back. It wouldn't just cause people who specifically chose a certain type of business model, or people who would feel cheated to quit; it would keep a lot of people who would otherwise return if the game became more balanced to stay away.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Nice strawman but I never once implied that because something is free, that there is no cost to obtaining it. The OP wants everyone, as part of their pay-to-play model to have the same gear as everyone else. One of the purposes of buying r999 as opposed to just g16 is to give yourself an advantage over the masses. If every single person has r999, that advantage is gone. And there is a functional loss in utility.
When newer gear comes out, it is different. If you want an advantage, you can still gain one. In addition, you'll still have the advantage over all the people in the all the different gear types you paid to have an advantage over, you are just no longer the top. Finally, price fixes on objects within the game are not guaranteed.
You cannot reasonably expect them to keep all items within their store the same price forever. You cannot reasonably expect to have the best forever, eventually older stuff is outclassed by new things. It happens in games and in life. That is different than telling you this is a free-to-play game and charging you thousands of dollars to be elite and then turning around and changing the type of game being played. S
o not only did you lose out on value of your gear, which while understandably upsetting will happen eventually....but you are suddenly being charged more money to even have access to the goods for which you paid. Which is NOT the case when new things are added. You are getting a less desirable produc
t for a higher price, after the fact of purchase. That is enough to make many people quit. It would make me quit. In addition, it changes the type of game being offered. Because the monetization model changes way more about a game than a price increase. To the OP, those changes are desirable. Nobody is going to request a price increase for no functional reason, there is a benefit to the price increase for those that like the p2p model of game, that is not possible with f2p games due to the way they must monetize their goods.



There are many new customers aren't drawn away by the p2w aspect because that's, unfortunately, becoming more and more standard with the f2p industry, that they could keep. They drive them away by having the game being new player hostile. Tons of new people do not make it far enough to even have those type of concerns. This game would require a lot more than just tweaking endgame to fix that. And this would cause a lot of people who previously picked pwi because it was a f2p game, from coming back. It wouldn't just cause people who specifically chose a certain type of business model, or people who would feel cheated to quit; it would keep a lot of people who would otherwise return if the game became more balanced to stay away.

It doesn't matter what OP wants, what matters is what PWE would do. He says he wants everyone in equal gear, but the reality is that rather than giving everyone equal gear right from the start everyone would be given an equal opportunity to obtain that gear. In a sense everyone is equal, but only in the sense that nobody has an edge over anyone else unless they have more time to invest.

Should new gear come out the same concept applies, everyone will have an equal chance to obtain it, and the price shifts would be much the same as they are now. New gear comes out, the price is high, the price gradually sinks as more and more people obtain it and it becomes less desirable. Again, nobody automatically gets the gear, they just have the same opportunity to obtain it. Now I understand the argument "No, people with better gear will have more advantage in obtaining it" could be used, and while that's true, it's not valid due to the fact that everyone will have had a more or less equal chance to obtain that gear.

Prices will shift regardless of game model, it doesn't matter if it's F2P or P2P the best of the best armor will gradually become lower in price, unless there's an update to it in which case it repeats the process of starting higher then lowering over time.

The thing about the F2P model is you aren't forced to pay. Yes, it costs thousands of dollars to obtain R9 in a day, but it takes months of farming. It was a decision on the part of the player to invest their money rather than their time on the gear. Were PWE to shift to a P2P model the gear would not lose its in game value, only the option to obtain it with money would be gone. Unless it was handled in such a way that the gear was given out for free or for very little effort this would not be much of a concern, as their money would still have been invested in armor of roughly the same in game value.

If the game were ever to switch models, as long as it wasn't handled poorly, R9 and the other boutique items would retain their in game value relatively well. Their value would gradually change at a different rate than they do currently, but you said yourself that prices shift and you can't expect to have the best of the best forever. The value is already shifting, and has been for a while.

The thing that would make people quit isn't losing their precious gear, if they spent all that time and money on it they would be attached to it enough that they'd want to keep it. The thing that would make people quit is PWE is just not good enough of a game to justify paying that much money a month to continue playing. If you held a poll I'd bet money that the reason people would stop is because it isn't worth it, not because they'd have to pay to keep the gear they already payed for. Sure, it'd be a factor, but I doubt that would be the primary reason. If I'm wrong, oh well, but that's certainly the reason I'd quit. If I had to pay to keep my R9 on a game I enjoyed? I'd shell out the cash if the game was good enough and PWE just simply isn't.

Your argument seems to be based on R9 and other boutique items losing their value, and while they'd lose their real life value they'd still retain their in game value, which prices shifting a little differently due to the change in game type. The money people invested would still have been used on the same thing, for the same purpose, and they'd have still gotten exactly what they paid for, with the only difference being that they and everyone else can no longer buy their way to gear and would have to work to obtain it. If the game model ever did switch I don't think you have to worry about the loss of value or feeling robbed, I would worry more about people leaving due to the game not being good enough.

Oh, and it would be a little difficult to feel wronged seeing as they'd likely give warning months in advance and discuss at least some details. You and everyone else were never forced to play, nor were you promised the game would stay free to play forever. They'd still allow you to play, you'd just have to pay a monthly fee and believe me there are far worse things. At the end of the day, it's a game. You can access it at any time and if you have the money to straight up buy any piece of Rank 9 you have the money to pay for a monthly game at least once or twice. The argument could be made that for F2P players such as myself the change would be far worse seeing as we'd no longer have the option.

Zanryu - Lothranis

Also, please space out your paragraphs. I woke up less than 10 minutes ago and that was pure hell to read through. If I didn't cover something well or what I said doesn't make sense you'll have to forgive me. I'm hella tired.

ovenusarmanio

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

It doesn't matter what OP wants, what matters is what PWE would do. He says he wants everyone in equal gear, but the reality is that rather than giving everyone equal gear right from the start everyone would be given an equal opportunity to obtain that gear. In a sense everyone is equal, but only in the sense that nobody has an edge over anyone else unless they have more time to invest.

I'm basing my arguments on the p2p plan that has been argued on this forums numerous times, and was specifically outlined as the plan up for consideration by the OP. What PWE wants is to keep the game f2p, and they've never given us any indication what route they'd chose to go by if they were to switch models.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Should new gear come out the same concept applies, everyone will have an equal chance to obtain it, and the price shifts would be much the same as they are now. New gear comes out, the price is high, the price gradually sinks as more and more people obtain it and it becomes less desirable. Again, nobody automatically gets the gear, they just have the same opportunity to obtain it. Now I understand the argument "No, people with better gear will have more advantage in obtaining it" could be used, and while that's true, it's not valid due to the fact that everyone will have had a more or less equal chance to obtain that gear.

Prices will shift regardless of game model, it doesn't matter if it's F2P or P2P the best of the best armor will gradually become lower in price, unless there's an update to it in which case it repeats the process of starting higher then lowering over time.

They can do that without going the p2p route, the specific point of going the p2p route would be to make those items so cheap that they are functionally free for everyone, with the idea being that the money would then be made by the subscriptions. There wouldn't be anything gradual about it.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

The thing about the F2P model is you aren't forced to pay. Yes, it costs thousands of dollars to obtain R9 in a day, but it takes months of farming. It was a decision on the part of the player to invest their money rather than their time on the gear. Were PWE to shift to a P2P model the gear would not lose its in game value, only the option to obtain it with money would be gone. Unless it was handled in such a way that the gear was given out for free or for very little effort this would not be much of a concern, as their money would still have been invested in armor of roughly the same in game value.

If the game were ever to switch models, as long as it wasn't handled poorly, R9 and the other boutique items would retain their in game value relatively well. Their value would gradually change at a different rate than they do currently, but you said yourself that prices shift and you can't expect to have the best of the best forever. The value is already shifting, and has been for a while.

When an item is purchased for a specific reason, and then that reason no longer exists either functionally or defacto, then that item has lost utility. You cannot deny that the reason that many purchase R9 is so that they can give themselves and advantage over the average person. And if they are no longer able to have that advantage, they have lost that utility. And yes, I'm aware that in f2p games you aren't forced to play. It is one of the many reasons I play them exclusively. I don't like the pressure to get my money's worth to play. I don't like the entire concept behind p2p. I don't like how pvp oriented p2p games tend to be, when I'm more into the RPG aspects of mmos. I do enjoy being able to make small purchases here and there to enhance my experience however. I'm one of the people who'd quit just for the forced to pay aspect alone. It's a big assumption to assume that everyone who likes f2p games will not object to p2p models alone. There are a lot of people out there that choose f2p games for a reason, usually becuase they can't or won't pay. And it's not just a matter of if they feel that particular game is worth it.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

The thing that would make people quit isn't losing their precious gear, if they spent all that time and money on it they would be attached to it enough that they'd want to keep it. The thing that would make people quit is PWE is just not good enough of a game to justify paying that much money a month to continue playing. If you held a poll I'd bet money that the reason people would stop is because it isn't worth it, not because they'd have to pay to keep the gear they already payed for. Sure, it'd be a factor, but I doubt that would be the primary reason. If I'm wrong, oh well, but that's certainly the reason I'd quit. If I had to pay to keep my R9 on a game I enjoyed? I'd shell out the cash if the game was good enough and PWE just simply isn't.

Every time you do a large price increase and take away some of the appeal of a service, you're going to get a large amount people who stop using that service. Just ask netflix, most people aren't even using their dvd rental service but they still lost their **** at the idea of netflix shifting business models. Even though they were still planning to offer people the ability to get their dvd rentals for a small fee. People choose specific monetization models when interacting with online products for various reasons, and the type of monetization model is itself a selling point.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Your argument seems to be based on R9 and other boutique items losing their value, and while they'd lose their real life value they'd still retain their in game value, which prices shifting a little differently due to the change in game type. The money people invested would still have been used on the same thing, for the same purpose, and they'd have still gotten exactly what they paid for, with the only difference being that they and everyone else can no longer buy their way to gear and would have to work to obtain it. If the game model ever did switch I don't think you have to worry about the loss of value or feeling robbed, I would worry more about people leaving due to the game not being good enough.

Oh, and it would be a little difficult to feel wronged seeing as they'd likely give warning months in advance and discuss at least some details. You and everyone else were never forced to play, nor were you promised the game would stay free to play forever. They'd still allow you to play, you'd just have to pay a monthly fee and believe me there are far worse things. At the end of the day, it's a game. You can access it at any time and if you have the money to straight up buy any piece of Rank 9 you have the money to pay for a monthly game at least once or twice. The argument could be made that for F2P players such as myself the change would be far worse seeing as we'd no longer have the option.

Look at all the people who quit when r8 went on sale, or when nation wars was introduced. There are always a lot of people who quit when the quality of these items are lowered, that they paid for. They got those items for a reason, and that reason is no longer valid. Changing the business model hits this group 3 ways: it devalues what they purchased, it loses the utility they purchased it for, and they will still be expected to pay more for it despite points 1 and 2. There is not getting around those 3 things. They are another group to account for when considering the types of people who would quit. There are the people who don't play p2p games (myself), the people who feel legitimately robbed, the people who spent a lot of money and don't want to be charged more for the same item they already paid for, the people who would feel like it was an unsavory business decision (myself), the people who can't afford to pay, the people who don't feel like it isn't worth it. That's a lot of different types of people who would leave.

Again, I never said I was promised anything. But it is pretty rare for this type of company to switch the monetization model so drastically, so many years into the game. This isn't a startup. Therefore there is a reasonable expectation that they will not make this game p2p, and if that expecation is not met, it is perfectly reasonable (not stupid) to take my business elsewhere for that reason. And the number of people who did this would likely be large. The question therefore becomes would it be enough people to replace them? Keeping in mind that this is an older game, and many of the people who may return if it were balanced cannot be counted amongst that group because they cannot or will not pay for it. Finally, as I said, the monetization model changes the way games are run.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

I'm basing my arguments on the p2p plan that has been argued on this forums numerous times, and was specifically outlined as the plan up for consideration by the OP. What PWE wants is to keep the game f2p, and they've never given us any indication what route they'd chose to go by if they were to switch models.



They can do that without going the p2p route, the specific point of going the p2p route would be to make those items so cheap that they are functionally free for everyone, with the idea being that the money would then be made by the subscriptions. There wouldn't be anything gradual about it.



When an item is purchased for a specific reason, and then that reason no longer exists either functionally or defacto, then that item has lost utility. You cannot deny that the reason that many purchase R9 is so that they can give themselves and advantage over the average person. And if they are no longer able to have that advantage, they have lost that utility. And yes, I'm aware that in f2p games you aren't forced to play. It is one of the many reasons I play them exclusively. I don't like the pressure to get my money's worth to play. I don't like the entire concept behind p2p. I don't like how pvp oriented p2p games tend to be, when I'm more into the RPG aspects of mmos. I do enjoy being able to make small purchases here and there to enhance my experience however. I'm one of the people who'd quit just for the forced to pay aspect alone. It's a big assumption to assume that everyone who likes f2p games will not object to p2p models alone. There are a lot of people out there that choose f2p games for a reason, usually becuase they can't or won't pay. And it's not just a matter of if they feel that particular game is worth it.



Every time you do a large price increase and take away some of the appeal of a service, you're going to get a large amount people who stop using that service. Just ask netflix, most people aren't even using their dvd rental service but they still lost their **** at the idea of netflix shifting business models. Even though they were still planning to offer people the ability to get their dvd rentals for a small fee. People choose specific monetization models when interacting with online products for various reasons, and the type of monetization model is itself a selling point.



Look at all the people who quit when r8 went on sale, or when nation wars was introduced. There are always a lot of people who quit when the quality of these items are lowered, that they paid for. They got those items for a reason, and that reason is no longer valid. Changing the business model hits this group 3 ways: it devalues what they purchased, it loses the utility they purchased it for, and they will still be expected to pay more for it despite points 1 and 2. There is not getting around those 3 things. They are another group to account for when considering the types of people who would quit. There are the people who don't play p2p games (myself), the people who feel legitimately robbed, the people who spent a lot of money and don't want to be charged more for the same item they already paid for, the people who would feel like it was an unsavory business decision (myself), the people who can't afford to pay, the people who don't feel like it isn't worth it. That's a lot of different types of people who would leave.

Again, I never said I was promised anything. But it is pretty rare for this type of company to switch the monetization model so drastically, so many years into the game. This isn't a startup. Therefore there is a reasonable expectation that they will not make this game p2p, and if that expecation is not met, it is perfectly reasonable (not stupid) to take my business elsewhere for that reason. And the number of people who did this would likely be large. The question therefore becomes would it be enough people to replace them? Keeping in mind that this is an older game, and many of the people who may return if it were balanced cannot be counted amongst that group because they cannot or will not pay for it. Finally, as I said, the monetization model changes the way games are run.

I'm not saying they have, I'd be shocked if they did honestly.



Coming from someone who's played P2P games, items are not and do not become so cheap they're functionally free for everyone. People are given equal opportunity to obtain gear, not equal gear. It's still a very competitive model when it comes to gear. It's unlikely that something like Rank 9 would drop to a point where it's anywhere close to being free given the effort it takes to obtain and its status as the best in game.



Rank 9 is purchased to make the user stronger. Charms are purchased to make the user more durable. Fashion is purchased to make the user more aesthetically pleasing. Changing models does nothing to affect the purpose of the items purchased and causes them to lose no utility. Rank 9 is currently purchased AND farmed to gain an advantage over others or to stand on equal ground with those that have it, people would lose one method of obtaining it and be forced to go the second route. As long as they don't hand the gear out for free the economy will be player driven as it currently is, and the armor will still retain a high value in game rendering the argument of it losing utility or value void.

Believing people would quit because they have to pay to continue to use gear they already bought is a large assumption to, seeing as people tend to grow attached to characters they invest a lot of time or money in. I'm not assuming, I'm fully aware that there are people who would quit if the game switched models. I'm one of them, but you can't think that everyone would leave just from the game becoming P2P alone. I'd still wager that it isn't just the model switch causing people to leave, it would be the fact that the game isn't worth paying monthly for.



10 dollars, or however much they'd charge is only large to those who don't currently cash shop at all. 0 dollars a month. Nada. Nothing. Zip. To just about everyone else that's a very reasonable fee given that we have a very large base of people who spend at least 20+ a month on charms or various other items. It would take away the appeal that an F2P game offers, as well as the appeal of knowing you can set it down any time, but it would provide the stability offered by P2P games which appeals to its share of people. I certainly prefer free to play, though lately I find that F2P is no longer truly F2P, it's pay to win. PWI is the greatest example of this that I can think of.



Look at how many stayed. Look at how many newer players were happier at being able to obtain their gear easier, and how many older players were able to turn a profit by providing that gear. These people stayed regardless of the change, and there are people who would stay if the game changed models. There are likely to even be people that would prefer the game that way, and it could potentially attract new customers to replace the old.

The items lose monetary value, not game value. They would still be difficult to obtain and require a large time investment, meaning they would retain a high in game coin value. I already covered utility, the items will retain utility as they still serve the same purpose. They'll be expected to pay for it, sure, but to the people who are already shelling out more than the fee would be per month I doubt that's much of a concern. I certainly wouldn't stay, and I believe switching to a P2P model would end the game, but I don't believe it would devalue items in the way you believe. And even if it did devalue items, there are people who dropped 30 grand on Warsoul weapons and they were still around after R9, their reason for quitting likely being boredom rather than the money they lost.



We aren't discussing the likelihood of it switching payment models, we're discussing how it would go if the switch would made. The likelihood of it happening is irrelevant. I'm also not going to try to convince you that it would be smarter to stay or that you should, my position on it is that I'd leave as well. I turned away from the gear I invested time in, the character I invested time in, and the friends I made without looking back. It took something impressive for me to pick this game up again and even now it fails to truly hold my interest, there's no way I'd pay to play this as I'm sure many others wouldn't.



I thought we were talking about the in game effects and the devaluation of gear and loss of utility? Not the way the game is run. Those are two different things and have even less to do with each other in a P2P game than an F2P one seeing as there's no sales or purchasable bonuses to give out in P2P, whereas F2P can have sales and all manner of items sold in the cash shop that players can purchase to gain a large edge.

ovenusarmanio

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

I'm not saying they have, I'd be shocked if they did honestly.

Then saying we have to consider what PWE wants holds no ground, and we should consider the suggestion as it is suggested. And the suggestion was to make it so what gear you are wearing is irrelevant but to make up the loss of income, make it subscription based.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Coming from someone who's played P2P games, items are not and do not become so cheap they're functionally free for everyone. People are given equal opportunity to obtain gear, not equal gear. It's still a very competitive model when it comes to gear. It's unlikely that something like Rank 9 would drop to a point where it's anywhere close to being free given the effort it takes to obtain and its status as the best in game.

IF rank 9 wasn't easily obtainable by everyone and their mom, and gear didn't matter, it would defeat the purpose of OP's suggestion.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Rank 9 is purchased to make the user stronger. Charms are purchased to make the user more durable. Fashion is purchased to make the user more aesthetically pleasing. Changing models does nothing to affect the purpose of the items purchased and causes them to lose no utility. Rank 9 is currently purchased AND farmed to gain an advantage over others or to stand on equal ground with those that have it, people would lose one method of obtaining it and be forced to go the second route. As long as they don't hand the gear out for free the economy will be player driven as it currently is, and the armor will still retain a high value in game rendering the argument of it losing utility or value void.

No, it doesn't. Because you're assuming reasons that have been proven over and over again to be demonstrably untrue. You can see that by the number of people who have quit the game whenever armors have been devalued because "now anyone can get it," one of the purposes of buying r9 is to be better geared than the average player. To again an advantage of them. And that purpose would be lost. For the people that mattered to, it would quit. It has happened every single last time the most expensive sets that people worked hard for paid for, had their item devalued. And it would happen again. That's a group of people, that's a utility of the gear, they exist.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Believing people would quit because they have to pay to continue to use gear they already bought is a large assumption to, seeing as people tend to grow attached to characters they invest a lot of time or money in. I'm not assuming, I'm fully aware that there are people who would quit if the game switched models. I'm one of them, but you can't think that everyone would leave just from the game becoming P2P alone. I'd still wager that it isn't just the model switch causing people to leave, it would be the fact that the game isn't worth paying monthly for.

This is just nothing more than Reductio ad absurdum. I never said everyone would leave, or that some wouldn't leave just because they don't think this particular game is worth paying money for. I pointed out numerous different groups that would definitely leave, and questioned if the amount of players lost would really be outweighed by the amount of players gained, especially given that switching monetization models functionally lowers the amount of people who can return that would have returned. I did make a poor example that required more clarification than it was worth that I attempted to edit out, but did not do fast enough. But that doesn't change the fact that group of players would exist. I made sure to point out that there are some people who are attached to their characters that would leave anyway based on the monetization model alone, but that by no means makes them an exclusive group. I listed several.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

10 dollars, or however much they'd charge is only large to those who don't currently cash shop at all. 0 dollars a month. Nada. Nothing. Zip. To just about everyone else that's a very reasonable fee given that we have a very large base of people who spend at least 20+ a month on charms or various other items. It would take away the appeal that an F2P game offers, as well as the appeal of knowing you can set it down any time, but it would provide the stability offered by P2P games which appeals to its share of people. I certainly prefer free to play, though lately I find that F2P is no longer truly F2P, it's pay to win. PWI is the greatest example of this that I can think of.

Nobody here pays money to access the game. 10 dollars is a large increase over free Even if 10 dollars is a relatively small amount for many casual spenders. In the OP version of this, it may be a smaller amount. For people who would still have cosmetic items in the boutique, that would actually still be a quite the increase since they'd still be paying money for those small items but would also have to pay to access. While we can't determine without any idea of what exactly would be in the boutique, and what PWE would choose to charge, if it would be cheaper for the average casual spender over all. It is still undoubtedly a large increase over previously free access.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Look at how many stayed. Look at how many newer players were happier at being able to obtain their gear easier, and how many older players were able to turn a profit by providing that gear. These people stayed regardless of the change, and there are people who would stay if the game changed models. There are likely to even be people that would prefer the game that way, and it could potentially attract new customers to replace the old.

The items lose monetary value, not game value. They would still be difficult to obtain and require a large time investment, meaning they would retain a high in game coin value. I already covered utility, the items will retain utility as they still serve the same purpose. They'll be expected to pay for it, sure, but to the people who are already shelling out more than the fee would be per month I doubt that's much of a concern. I certainly wouldn't stay, and I believe switching to a P2P model would end the game, but I don't believe it would devalue items in the way you believe. And even if it did devalue items, there are people who dropped 30 grand on Warsoul weapons and they were still around after R9, their reason for quitting likely being boredom rather than the money they lost.

It happens every time a gear set has been devalued Zan, and it's always been large numbers. And this is on top of all the other types of people that would leave. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it hasn't happened every last time. And it does lose game value. Or do you really want to argue that once g16 became easy to get, g16 became less of an attractive choice for pvp? That wasn't just because r999 existed, it was also because now everyone and their mom had g16 gear so having it wasn't special anymore.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

We aren't discussing the likelihood of it switching payment models, we're discussing how it would go if the switch would made. The likelihood of it happening is irrelevant. I'm also not going to try to convince you that it would be smarter to stay or that you should, my position on it is that I'd leave as well. I turned away from the gear I invested time in, the character I invested time in, and the friends I made without looking back. It took something impressive for me to pick this game up again and even now it fails to truly hold my interest, there's no way I'd pay to play this as I'm sure many others wouldn't.

We can't know how it would go, we have nothing to go by because it is so unlikely. So we need to evaluate the suggestion on it's own merits, not on what we assume it would go like. And on it's own merits, the OP wants gear to be irrelevant. That's a problem.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

I thought we were talking about the in game effects and the devaluation of gear and loss of utility? Not the way the game is run. Those are two different things and have even less to do with each other in a P2P game than an F2P one seeing as there's no sales or purchasable bonuses to give out in P2P, whereas F2P can have sales and all manner of items sold in the cash shop that players can purchase to gain a large edge.

I've said over and over again that the monetization model is more than just a price increase. It changes the way a game is run, which has real in-game effects. The way a game is not irrelevant when it comes to discussing switching monetization models. Since switching monetization models, is in effect, switching the way a game is run. There are people who prefer f2p games because of the way they are run, over p2p games. And don't play p2p games even if they can afford it. That's a group that would be lost by the change.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Then saying we have to consider what PWE wants holds no ground, and we should consider the suggestion as it is suggested. And the suggestion was to make it so what gear you are wearing is irrelevant but to make up the loss of income, make it subscription based.

It does, considering that should the game switch to a P2P model it'll happen under PWE's terms and what they deem acceptable, not the players. We're discussing what happens if the game goes P2P, I imagine the company's plans for the game hold relevance.


IF rank 9 wasn't easily obtainable by everyone and their mom, and gear didn't matter, it would defeat the purpose of OP's suggestion.

Rank 9 becoming easily available is not a requirement to make the switch to a P2P model, the appeal of that game model is that everyone has an equal chance to obtain gear, not that the gear is easy to obtain. The OP's suggestion is open to interpretation. What constitutes free? Does he mean free in game or free in the sense that you don't need to spend real life money? Being equal can just as easily mean that the opportunity is equal, but not the actual gear itself.



It was never explicitly stated that he wants the P2P model you believe he wants. Would you honestly want the type of game you believe OP is suggesting? Even if he means what you believe he does, it doesn't defeat the purpose at all. The game would still be P2P, but rather than giving gear out for free people still have to work for it, meaning they'd be more attached to it and it because people would then have to work together it could actually get people to bond over whatever it is they'd have to do for their goals by working towards together, which is something that creates a stronger attachment to a game.

No, it doesn't. Because you're assuming reasons that have been proven over and over again to be demonstrably untrue. You can see that by the number of people who have quit the game whenever armors have been devalued because "now anyone can get it," one of the purposes of buying r9 is to be better geared than the average player. To again an advantage of them. And that purpose would be lost. For the people that mattered to, it would quit. It has happened every single last time the most expensive sets that people worked hard for paid for, had their item devalued. And it would happen again. That's a group of people, that's a utility of the gear, they exist.

If the reasons I'm "assuming" are demonstrably untrue then there would be no PWI. Everyone would have quit ages ago due to the R8/9 sales and NW, but the game is still.. alive. I wouldn't say thriving, it was never thriving, but it's alive. Why? Because people stayed. Because people took the places of those that left. It's a different bunch that are here for different reasons, but the game is still here and people still play. Yes, people would quit if the game became P2P, I won't argue that, but not everyone would leave.

As I said before devaluing armor in game is not a requirement to switch models, as long as Rank 9 and the other boutique items retain their coin value they haven't lost utility as they're still as hard to obtain, harder in fact due to the inability to spend real life money. Rank 9 would very likely retain its high value and status and lose little utility, if any at all. The only thing it loses is the method to obtain it easily.

This is just nothing more than Reductio ad absurdum. I never said everyone would leave, or that some wouldn't leave just because they don't think this particular game is worth paying money for. I pointed out numerous different groups that would definitely leave, and questioned if the amount of players lost would really be outweighed by the amount of players gained, especially given that switching monetization models functionally lowers the amount of people who can return that would have returned. I did make a poor example that required more clarification than it was worth that I attempted to edit out, but did not do fast enough. But that doesn't change the fact that group of players would exist. I made sure to point out that there are some people who are attached to their characters that would leave anyway based on the monetization model alone, but that by no means makes them an exclusive group. I listed several.

Why do you have to use big words? Come on now, I'm not no fancy booksmart guy.

The groups you listed aren't the only ones. Just as there are groups who'd leave there are groups who'd stay. It does indeed become a question of whether or not one set of groups is larger than the other, but we seem to be discussing the value of in game items rather than people leaving specifically because of the switch in model. Though I guess that ties in, so I guess we're mostly discussing one aspect of it. In any case I don't see the need for big words.

10 dollars, or however much they'd charge is only large to those who don't currently cash shop at all. 0 dollars a month. Nada. Nothing. Zip. To just about everyone else that's a very reasonable fee given that we have a very large base of people who spend at least 20+ a month on charms or various other items. It would take away the appeal that an F2P game offers, as well as the appeal of knowing you can set it down any time, but it would provide the stability offered by P2P games which appeals to its share of people. I certainly prefer free to play, though lately I find that F2P is no longer truly F2P, it's pay to win. PWI is the greatest example of this that I can think of.

Nobody here pays money to access the game. 10 dollars is a large increase over free Even if 10 dollars is a relatively small amount for many casual spenders. In the OP version of this, it may be a smaller amount. For people who would still have cosmetic items in the boutique, that would actually still be a quite the increase since they'd still be paying money for those small items but would also have to pay to access. While we can't determine without any idea of what exactly would be in the boutique, and what PWE would choose to charge, if it would be cheaper for the average casual spender over all. It is still undoubtedly a large increase over previously free access.

It's a large increase to those who don't pay anything at all, but to those who casually buy items from the boutique it's doubtful to register in their minds as an increase. It's certainly an increase over what you pay now to simply access the game, I'm not arguing that, but it's doubtful to put off anyone who's already spending decent amounts for boutique items.


It happens every time a gear set has been devalued Zan, and it's always been large numbers. And this is on top of all the other types of people that would leave. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it hasn't happened every last time. And it does lose game value. Or do you really want to argue that once g16 became easy to get, g16 became less of an attractive choice for pvp? That wasn't just because r999 existed, it was also because now everyone and their mom had g16 gear so having it wasn't special anymore.

When did I ignore the fact that people have left? I left. I'm fully aware people leave for various reasons and that people get upset if their gear is devalued. When my G15 pants went from a 200m price tag to a 20m price tag I was pretty upset, I didn't like it, and I imagine other people hated it even more with their full Nirvana sets, but as I said some people quit, others stayed. If I'm ignoring the fact that people leave, you're ignoring the fact that others stay.

Yes, I do want to argue that G16 became less of an attractive option for PvP once it became easier to obtain. When more powerful gear becomes easier to obtain and closes the gap between the user and someone with the highest tier of gear, then the gear that became easier to obtain would see an increase in use rather than a decrease, regardless of how unique or special it is or was. If you were in G15 Nirvana, and you were used to fighting R9s, and G16 became easier to get would you really pass up the chance for an easy upgrade to improve your ability in combat? I sincerely doubt it.



We can't know how it would go, we have nothing to go by because it is so unlikely. So we need to evaluate the suggestion on it's own merits, not on what we assume it would go like. And on it's own merits, the OP wants gear to be irrelevant. That's a problem.

It still seems open to interpretation, but even if that's what OP wants that doesn't mean it's what would happen. If it is what he wants, it's also open to improvement. Do you believe implementing new ways of obtaining R9 in game that would be difficult enough to allow it to retain its current value for the most part would affect the people who have it a lot? It's not hard to time gate to artificially inflate prices. Plenty of other options as well I suppose.


I've said over and over again that the monetization model is more than just a price increase. It changes the way a game is run, which has real in-game effects. The way a game is not irrelevant when it comes to discussing switching monetization models. Since switching monetization models, is in effect, switching the way a game is run. There are people who prefer f2p games because of the way they are run, over p2p games. And don't play p2p games even if they can afford it. That's a group that would be lost by the change.


You aren't really saying anything new here. This statement contributes nothing as we've already been over the fact that some people would leave and others would stay. The way a game is run is changed, but the actual game itself remains mostly the same. This is gonna be short because I really need to get back to my FC

Replies in red.

ovenusarmanio

It does, considering that should the game switch to a P2P model it'll happen under PWE's terms and what they deem acceptable, not the players. We're discussing what happens if the game goes P2P, I imagine the company's plans for the game hold relevance.

You don't know what their plans would be. You can't know. And they've given no indication that would even help us make reasonable assumptions. There are p2p games where what gear you have doesn't really matter, and it's more a question of skill. Which is what the OP is asking for, for the gear not to matter. The only way for the gear not to matter is if the gear is equal. And the only way to do that with the existing structure, is if everyone has r999. The only way to get everyone into that gear is to make r999 very cheap.

Rank 9 becoming easily available is not a requirement to make the switch to a P2P model, the appeal of that game model is that everyone has an equal chance to obtain gear, not that the gear is easy to obtain. The OP's suggestion is open to interpretation. What constitutes free? Does he mean free in game or free in the sense that you don't need to spend real life money? Being equal can just as easily mean that the opportunity is equal, but not the actual gear itself.

It's a requirement to make the OP's suggestion workable. He wants this

I would rather pay 10-20$ a month to play it, have the same gear and and refines and shards as everyone else

that's what the suggestion is about. He wants everyone to have the same refines, shards, and gear as everyone else. This would devalue the purpose of r9 gear for those who bought it to be better than average geared. There are a lot of people who buy it for that purpose, and if it loses that purpose, it has lose some of it's utility. There have been people who cited the exact reason "now everyone has it" as the reason they are quitting, every single last time the gear set de jour has been devalued. It's a reason, it exists.

It was never explicitly stated that he wants the P2P model you believe he wants. Would you honestly want the type of game you believe OP is suggesting? Even if he means what you believe he does, it doesn't defeat the purpose at all. The game would still be P2P, but rather than giving gear out for free people still have to work for it, meaning they'd be more attached to it and it because people would then have to work together it could actually get people to bond over whatever it is they'd have to do for their goals by working towards together, which is something that creates a stronger attachment to a game.

OP doesn't want people to have to spend a year to just catchup, no-lifing pve while getting one shot by people who have better gear. He doesn't want to just solve it being in the cash shop, he wants to solve the gear gap. He wants the same refines and shards as everyone else for just 10-20 dollars a month.

As I said before devaluing armor in game is not a requirement to switch models, as long as Rank 9 and the other boutique items retain their coin value they haven't lost utility as they're still as hard to obtain, harder in fact due to the inability to spend real life money. Rank 9 would very likely retain its high value and status and lose little utility, if any at all. The only thing it loses is the method to obtain it easily

.

No, no it isn't. But I'm basing my arguments on the framework the OP wants us to discuss. And you don't have to switch models to close the gear gap either, fwiw.

Why do you have to use big words? Come on now, I'm not no fancy booksmart guy.

The groups you listed aren't the only ones. Just as there are groups who'd leave there are groups who'd stay. It does indeed become a question of whether or not one set of groups is larger than the other, but we seem to be discussing the value of in game items rather than people leaving specifically because of the switch in model. Though I guess that ties in, so I guess we're mostly discussing one aspect of it. In any case I don't see the need for big words.

It's a large increase to those who don't pay anything at all, but to those who casually buy items from the boutique it's doubtful to register in their minds as an increase. It's certainly an increase over what you pay now to simply access the game, I'm not arguing that, but it's doubtful to put off anyone who's already spending decent amounts for boutique items

Reductio ad Absurdum is when you reduce someone's argument to an illogical extreme. I have never stated this was the only group, or that everyone would quit. I said based on the past, there would be a large number of people who quit for that reason. And listed several other groups that would also quit. I then questioned if the number of people lost would outweigh the number of people gained.

When did I ignore the fact that people have left? I left. I'm fully aware people leave for various reasons and that people get upset if their gear is devalued. When my G15 pants went from a 200m price tag to a 20m price tag I was pretty upset, I didn't like it, and I imagine other people hated it even more with their full Nirvana sets, but as I said some people quit, others stayed. If I'm ignoring the fact that people leave, you're ignoring the fact that others stay.

Yes, I do want to argue that G16 became less of an attractive option for PvP once it became easier to obtain. When more powerful gear becomes easier to obtain and closes the gap between the user and someone with the highest tier of gear, then the gear that became easier to obtain would see an increase in use rather than a decrease, regardless of how unique or special it is or was. If you were in G15 Nirvana, and you were used to fighting R9s, and G16 became easier to get would you really pass up the chance for an easy upgrade to improve your ability in combat? I sincerely doubt it.

You're not ignoring the fact people have left. You're ignoring the fact people have left specifically because their particularly expensive gear was made less useful in their eyes because everyone has their gear. For them, one of the reasons to purchase the gear was to be better than everyone else. And now that they've lost that advantage, they got upset. And left. It's already happened numerous times, and the group of people who did that would be hit in more than one way. It's not just that everyone has it, it's not just that it's lost monetary value, but now they have to pay to keep using it. They are paying more for less. That isn't going to sit well with a good portion of them. Many of them will leave. It's happened before, and it would happen again.

It still seems open to interpretation, but even if that's what OP wants that doesn't mean it's what would happen. If it is what he wants, it's also open to improvement. Do you believe implementing new ways of obtaining R9 in game that would be difficult enough to allow it to retain its current value for the most part would affect the people who have it a lot? It's not hard to time gate to artificially inflate prices. Plenty of other options as well I suppose.

If it retained it's current value, then it wouldn't solve the gear gap issue. It would be p2w anymore, but it wouldn't be much better since you still would have to deal with the balance issue that is at the heart of the problem of p2w. Until that is solved, i doubt a lot of people would pay money to continue to be one shot by r9 people and have it still take over a year to obtain for themselves. Although I'm sure some would come back because at least everyone new is in the same boat now.

You aren't really saying anything new here. This statement contributes nothing as we've already been over the fact that some people would leave and others would stay. The way a game is run is changed, but the actual game itself remains mostly the same. This is gonna be short because I really need to get back to my FC

It wouldn't remain the same if all the gear was the same. The playerbase and it's overall goals would likely change as well. It would likely be more pvp oriented, and new updates would likely keep the new structure in mind. There are strengths and weaknesses of both payment models but they do change an awful lot about games.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

You don't know what their plans would be. You can't know. And they've given no indication that would even help us make reasonable assumptions. There are p2p games where what gear you have doesn't really matter, and it's more a question of skill. Which is what the OP is asking for, for the gear not to matter. The only way for the gear not to matter is if the gear is equal. And the only way to do that with the existing structure, is if everyone has r999. The only way to get everyone into that gear is to make r999 very cheap.

Gear should always matter, if there's no "best" to work for then a great deal of time that people currently spend in games would no longer be spent.



It's a requirement to make the OP's suggestion workable. He wants this that's what the suggestion is about. He wants everyone to have the same refines, shards, and gear as everyone else. This would devalue the purpose of r9 gear for those who bought it to be better than average geared. There are a lot of people who buy it for that purpose, and if it loses that purpose, it has lose some of it's utility. There have been people who cited the exact reason "now everyone has it" as the reason they are quitting, every single last time the gear set de jour has been devalued. It's a reason, it exists.

If OP were to get his way, then I'll agree that it would be devalued, but if that game model were implemented correctly the value wouldn't go down significantly. (Parenthesis don't count, I'm referring to P2P in general, not OP's specific P2P model. His is private server tier sillyness)



OP doesn't want people to have to spend a year to just catchup, no-lifing pve while getting one shot by people who have better gear. He doesn't want to just solve it being in the cash shop, he wants to solve the gear gap. He wants the same refines and shards as everyone else for just 10-20 dollars a month.

This will have to be a question, in what universe does it take a year to farm R9?

.

No, no it isn't. But I'm basing my arguments on the framework the OP wants us to discuss. And you don't have to switch models to close the gear gap either, fwiw.

Doesn't that make this pointless, since you're stuck on that model while I'm talking about how a P2P model in general wouldn't devalue the gear in the way you think OP's would?


Reductio ad Absurdum is when you reduce someone's argument to an illogical extreme. I have never stated this was the only group, or that everyone would quit. I said based on the past, there would be a large number of people who quit for that reason. And listed several other groups that would also quit. I then questioned if the number of people lost would outweigh the number of people gained.

I'm fairly certain I didn't reductio ad absudiorium you.



You're not ignoring the fact people have left. You're ignoring the fact people have left specifically because their particularly expensive gear was made less useful in their eyes because everyone has their gear. For them, one of the reasons to purchase the gear was to be better than everyone else. And now that they've lost that advantage, they got upset. And left. It's already happened numerous times, and the group of people who did that would be hit in more than one way. It's not just that everyone has it, it's not just that it's lost monetary value, but now they have to pay to keep using it. They are paying more for less. That isn't going to sit well with a good portion of them. Many of them will leave. It's happened before, and it would happen again.

People stayed, others replaced those that the game lost, that too would happen again.


If it retained it's current value, then it wouldn't solve the gear gap issue. It would be p2w anymore, but it wouldn't be much better since you still would have to deal with the balance issue that is at the heart of the problem of p2w. Until that is solved, i doubt a lot of people would pay money to continue to be one shot by r9 people and have it still take over a year to obtain for themselves. Although I'm sure some would come back because at least everyone new is in the same boat now.

Actually the boat would be much nicer, as people can't get full R9 in a week with cold hard cash.


It wouldn't remain the same if all the gear was the same. The playerbase and it's overall goals would likely change as well. It would likely be more pvp oriented, and new updates would likely keep the new structure in mind. There are strengths and weaknesses of both payment models but they do change an awful lot about games.

PWE already has pretty crappy updates, I don't imagine they'd be any worse on another payment model.

Hmmmmm. I'm gonna try to reply to each of these with one sentence per paragraph. This is grown boring so I'm making a game out of it. Next time I may only use words with certain letters or something.

Brillance - Raging Tide

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Nice strawman but I never once implied that because something is free, that there is no cost to obtaining it. The OP wants everyone, as part of their pay-to-play model to have the same gear as everyone else. One of the purposes of buying r999 as opposed to just g16 is to give yourself an advantage over the masses. If every single person has r999, that advantage is gone. And there is a functional loss in utility....

This makes you seem like you are saying people cannot compete in the same gears, because obviously people who pay-to-win have no skills and NEED a game-breaking advantage. Nirvana G16 is 49% or less compared to the 100% for the best purchased gears - R9T3. That could be a very good point, I guess. I dont think its a good arguement for keeping new people from playing due to the cost to have the proper gears for balanced competition. But I do understand an accepted community wanting to maintain an advantage out of fear.

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

There are many new customers aren't drawn away by the p2w aspect because that's, unfortunately, becoming more and more standard with the f2p industry, that they could keep. They drive them away by having the game being new player hostile. Tons of new people do not make it far enough to even have those type of concerns. This game would require a lot more than just tweaking endgame to fix that. And this would cause a lot of people who previously picked pwi because it was a f2p game, from coming back. It wouldn't just cause people who specifically chose a certain type of business model, or people who would feel cheated to quit; it would keep a lot of people who would otherwise return if the game became more balanced to stay away.

Okay - I hope you are right, lol. New customers implies CSers. I was a CSer till I realised Id never have enough excess playtime income to keep up with the Jones'. Its rather sad that an MMO is too elite for our $80 a month that we used to pay until we found no reason to pay it anymore. Im very happy that PW is doing so well they dont need thousands of players giving them even $20 a month. Kudos to PW. b:victory

Other games are not breaking themselves - at least not other good games. One that recently converted to the combat 'levels based on gears' model that this game has is now in the process of considering back-tracking from, or at least altering that new model, as most of their playerbase (in the tens of thousands, btw) rejected it. They even opened up an Old School version to keep those players that were leaving still focused on their title. They so far have only allowed Cosmetics and other game aids in their Cash Shop. One could foresee them changing their Cash Shop based on the combat model put in place. Thanks to games like PW, consumers are smarter now, I guess, and the devs are looking to remain a MMO title in good standing for the distant future. Smart Brits, you would have to say. b:victory

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

I'd immediately quit if this game went p2p. Wouldn't even think twice about it. I don't pay for MMOs, as I prefer to buy content when I feel like it than to pay to even have access to it. If I wanted to do that, I'd just plop down 60 bucks on a single player game and be happier. At least then it's mine and I can sell off the used one to a game store, or trade it in for store credit when I'm done. And don't have to worry about things like not having access to the servers or getting banned. I'm sure I'm not the only person here that specifically chose this and other f2p games specifically because they are free-to-play. Just as there are a lot of people out there that avoid f2p games because of some of the problems inherent with the way they have to monetize. Baiting and switching is not something I tolerate as a consumer, which is how I would regard such a change personally.

Okay, then you like few players on a game, if you would leave an MMO to go buy an anti-social single-player game. Funny, you used to seem very FOR getting new players on the servers, when clearly that is of no concern to you whatsoever. MMOs are social games - NOT social class designators, lol. But, you are entitled to that outlook as well.

I had thought you might be playing 'Devil's Advocate' until I read the above. You personally like it just the way it is. Do heavy CSers really never get banned though?? You spoke about that like you have something to worry about.

That is what it is too, I guess. Great then, ya know.


*waits for someone to claim I somehow put words in their mouth, even though they have the capacity to express themselves rather clearly* b:thanks

ovenusarmanio

Gear should always matter, if there's no "best" to work for then a great deal of time that people currently spend in games would no longer be spent.

The OP wants it to be a game of skill.

If OP were to get his way, then I'll agree that it would be devalued, but if that game model were implemented correctly the value wouldn't go down significantly. (Parenthesis don't count, I'm referring to P2P in general, not OP's specific P2P model. His is private server tier sillyness)

I don't see that much benefit from yours, it would still take a long time to pay off. And it doesn't address the heart of the problem with the difference between r9 and g16, which is that more casual people cannot compete and the bar of entry is very high.

This will have to be a question, in what universe does it take a year to farm R9?

Not everyone has the time farm that you do. Lots of people complain on these forums about it would take them a year or more to get their r9, while others can get it within a week. They might be exaggerating but without knowing more about them personally, whose to say.

Doesn't that make this pointless, since you're stuck on that model while I'm talking about how a P2P model in general wouldn't devalue the gear in the way you think OP's would?

I don't think alternative models would devalue the gear as bad as the OP's model would. But I think that making it still take just as long and having just as little balance between g16 and r9, and what a casual and hardcore player can do, defeats the point of making it p2p in the first place.

I'm fairly certain I didn't reductio ad absudiorium you.

you can't think that everyone would leave just from the game becoming P2P alone.

^
That was the reductio ad absurdum. It was presented as if it was my opinion you were arguing against, but it was my argument taken to absurd extreme. OFC not everyone would leave just from the game becoming p2p alone. Nor did i even say most. I listed several different types of people, and then questioned if the people this attracted would outweigh the number that left.

People stayed, others replaced those that the game lost, that too would happen again.

Never said it wouldn't. I do question if it would be enough. You were the one arguing that r9 would lose little, if any utility, and that people therefore would not quit in significant numbers for that reason. Although some of our disagreement is likely because of two different visions of this as a p2p game.

Actually the boat would be much nicer, as people can't get full R9 in a week with cold hard cash.

Agreed.

PWE already has pretty crappy updates, I don't imagine they'd be any worse on another payment model

I've liked many of the updates to PWI. And some of the updates I didn't enjoy, I would have if they'd simply adjusted some of the content.

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Hmmmmm. I'm gonna try to reply to each of these with one sentence per paragraph. This is grown boring so I'm making a game out of it. Next time I may only use words with certain letters or something.

Whatever.

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

This makes you seem like you are saying people cannot compete in the same gears, because obviously people who pay-to-win have no skills and NEED a game-breaking advantage. Nirvana G16 is 49% or less compared to the 100% for the best purchased gears - R9T3. That could be a very good point, I guess. I dont think its a good arguement for keeping new people from playing due to the cost to have the proper gears for balanced competition. But I do understand an accepted community wanting to maintain an advantage out of fear.


I don't know how you got that from what I said, so I really don't know how to address it.


Okay - I hope you are right, lol. New customers implies CSers. I was a CSer till I realised Id never have enough excess playtime income to keep up with the Jones'. Its rather sad that an MMO is too elite for our $80 a month that we used to pay until we found no reason to pay it anymore. Im very happy that PW is doing so well they dont need thousands of players giving them even $20 a month. Kudos to PW. b:victory

Other games are not breaking themselves - at least not other good games. One that recently converted to the combat 'levels based on gears' model that this game has is now in the process of considering back-tracking from, or at least altering that new model, as most of their playerbase (in the tens of thousands, btw) rejected it. They even opened up an Old School version to keep those players that were leaving still focused on their title. They so far have only allowed Cosmetics and other game aids in their Cash Shop. One could foresee them changing their Cash Shop based on the combat model put in place. Thanks to games like PW, consumers are smarter now, I guess, and the devs are looking to remain a MMO title in good standing for the distant future. Smart Brits, you would have to say. b:victory

Good for them. But all I meant was that PWE isn't even doing what they can to get new customers in with the current model.


Okay, then you like few players on a game, if you would leave an MMO to go buy an anti-social single-player game. Funny, you used to seem very FOR getting new players on the servers, when clearly that is of no concern to you whatsoever. MMOs are social games - NOT social class designators, lol. But, you are entitled to that outlook as well.

I had thought you might be playing 'Devil's Advocate' until I read the above. You personally like it just the way it is. Do heavy CSers really never get banned though?? You spoke about that like you have something to worry about.

That is what it is too, I guess. Great then, ya know.


*waits for someone to claim I somehow put words in their mouth, even though they have the capacity to express themselves rather clearly* b:thanks

Putting words in someone's mouth is when you make arguments based off assumptions on someone's writing, that cannot reasonably be gleaned from their post. don't know why you'd assume I'd say that, unless of course you've arrived to the conclusion on your own that you're reply doesn't match my responses. Which btw, it really doesn't. I don't know what made you think I hate new players from that, but I can disagree with a method of attracting people without disagreeing with the overall goal. Also, no, I'm not a heavy cs'er and if you really care to know if I've been banned, you can pm me. As it is not to be discussed on the forums.

Brillance - Raging Tide

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

Putting words in someone's mouth is when you make arguments based off assumptions on someone's writing, that cannot reasonably be gleaned from their post. don't know why you'd assume I'd say that, unless of course you've arrived to the conclusion on your own that you're reply doesn't match my responses. Which btw, it really doesn't. I don't know what made you think I hate new players from that, but I can disagree with a method of attracting people without disagreeing with the overall goal. Also, no, I'm not a heavy cs'er and if you really care to know if I've been banned, you can pm me. As it is not to be discussed on the forums.

I know what putting word's in someones mouth means, and been accused of it more than once. I anticipated it happening again. That little bottom line is called a, "pre-emptive strike!" b:chuckle

If a child says, "I dont like what you want to do in this sandbox, guys - so Im going to go play alone in my closet", that is clearly not very social. Its not an effort to reason with the other sandbox users for that child to remove itself from the sandbox, is it?

I am only gleaning what is thrown at me. Expanding on it is great, if you should want to. It is one thing to say, "I (meaning me, Brill) misunderstood what you meant." Its another to say you cant reasonably figure out where I am getting my replies from. I got my replies from what I thought after reading the words someone chose to write in the clearly outlined posts that I quoted.

I never said you hate new players. I said you like things just the way they are. Previously, I had thought that you were pro-new players until I read that if a change happened, you would stop playing this MMO in order to play a single-player that you could get some bucks back on when you felt were done with it. Either this was a bad example, or that you said what you meant to say.

I can empathise to a degree with that - being so disgused that you would rather do something alone. But the whole point of MMOs is to socialise, be social, be atrractive to others that are social.

Im sort of old school myself though, so maybe that has changed to be more alone and alouf, be hateful, be emo, "To heck with everyone! FTW!" and Im just too old to know it. b:chuckle

Thanks for the chat, Venus. I believe at this point everyone understands that you have numerous reasons why there is no point in trying to save the game, as it does not need saving. Its fine.

The trick is to figure out how to get more people to play without changing anything.

Thats like an obese person sitting at a Weight Watchers meeting asking, "How can I lose weight without changing anything?" Cool ya know...*shrugs*

ovenusarmanio

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

I know what putting word's in someones mouth means, and been accused of it more than once. I anticipated it happening again. That little bottom line is called a, "pre-emptive strike!" b:chuckle

If a child says, "I dont like what you want to do in this sandbox, guys - so Im going to go play alone in my closet", that is clearly not very social. Its not an effort to reason with the other sandbox users for that child to remove itself from the sandbox, is it?

No, because I still play f2p mmos. That part was about how I spend money on games, not how I choose to socialize on them. You're the one that read stuff into it that wasn't there. I can't be helped if you do that, but that paragraph was clearly about payment for games and not the social aspect of them. To use your example, if we were playing baseball. And then suddenly, everyone decides to go swimming. I'm not a good swimmer, so I'm excluded from your group because I cannot join you. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy other water based things like slip n slides or sprinklers or soaking in a jacuzzi. And saying I'd rather do one of them instead of participating in the water thing you enjoy, doesn't make me anti-social. And trying to tie my not swimming into my feelings about socialization in general, is just absurd.

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

I am only gleaning what is thrown at me. Expanding on it is great, if you should want to. It is one thing to say, "I (meaning me, Brill) misunderstood what you meant." Its another to say you cant reasonably figure out where I am getting my replies from. I got my replies from what I thought after reading the words someone chose to write in the clearly outlined posts that I quoted.

No, you're trying to take someone arguing against one specific suggestion, and turning it into their beliefs in general. IIRC, you are against adding in a level cap in FC. Does that mean you don't want new players engaged in content? Should I also say "well I thought Brillance wanted to get more new players into the game, but now I see that she doesn't and she likes the game exactly the way it is, despite all her posts to the contrary." If you would find it absurd that I would say such a thing, based off your posts there, then you should also be able to see how it's absurd to say I want things to be exactly the way they are just because I don't want it to be subscription based.

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

I never said you hate new players. I said you like things just the way they are. Previously, I had thought that you were pro-new players until I read that if a change happened, you would stop playing this MMO in order to play a single-player that you could get some bucks back on when you
felt were done with it. Either this was a bad example, or that you said what you meant to say.

I can empathise to a degree with that - being so disgused that you would rather do something alone. But the whole point of MMOs is to socialise, be social, be atrractive to others that are social.

Im sort of old school myself though, so maybe that has changed to be more alone and alouf, be hateful, be emo, "To heck with everyone! FTW!" and Im just too old to know it. b:chuckle

Again, that was only example on the way I spend my money. A personal example to illustrate one of the type of players that would quit based on it being a p2p model alone, with no other considerations other than that. I'm not the only. There are people out there that prefer f2p games and people out there that enjoy p2p games and look for their chosen genre exclusively. There are also people that would stop playing because they can't afford subscription based games. These are groups that would be lost. What is not, and what you tried to turn it into, is a view on how I want to socialize and whether or not I want new players to enter in the game. I am pro-new players, but i think this suggestion would do more harm than good. If it's implemented the way OP suggests, it would become a pay to play private server. If it it is implemented in a such way where nothing really changes and there is still a ridiculous power gap, I don't see how charging more for the exact same product offers much benefit.

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

Thanks for the chat, Venus. I believe at this point everyone understands that you have numerous reasons why there is no point in trying to save the game, as it does not need saving. Its fine.

The trick is to figure out how to get more people to play without changing anything.

Thats like an obese person sitting at a Weight Watchers meeting asking, "How can I lose weight without changing anything?" Cool ya know...*shrugs*

There are things you can change without going p2p. Beefing up the farmable gear so that the difference between them is roughly the same as the difference between g16 and regular r9 is a start. For a brief moment, that was the case. And during that time I saw a lot more people talking about pvp, although I'm not sure if that translated as well into actual numbers. You can put in more engaging content into the low game, so that people's first impression of this game isn't that it's empty or full of botters. Both of those are bad looks. There are all kinds of things that can be done. If I went to weight watchers, and told them I want to lose weight but can't give up chicken. Do you really think that means I can't lose weight. Or are there all kinds of healthy chicken recipes, and things like moderation, that will allow me to eat chicken and still lose weight.

Brillance - Raging Tide

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

No, because I still play f2p mmos. That part was about how I spend money on games, not how I choose to socialize on them. You're the one that read stuff into it that wasn't there. I can't be helped if you do that, but that paragraph was clearly about payment for games and not the social aspect of them. To use your example, if we were playing baseball. And then suddenly, everyone decides to go swimming. I'm not a good swimmer, so I'm excluded from your group because I cannot join you. That doesn't mean I can enjoy other water based things like slip n slides or sprinklers or soaking in a jacuzzi. And saying I'd rather do one of them instead of participating in the water thing you enjoy, doesn't make me anti-social. And trying to tie my not swimming into my feelings about socialization in general, is just absurd.



No, you're trying to take someone arguing against one specific suggestion, and turning it into their beliefs in general. IIRC, you are against adding in a level cap in FC. Does that mean you don't want new players engaged in content? Should I also say "well I thought Brillance wanted to get more new players into the game, but now I see that she doesn't and she likes the game exactly the way it is, despite all her posts to the contrary." If you would find it absurd that I would say such a thing, based off your posts there, then you should also be able to see how it's absurd to say I want things to be exactly the way they are just because I don't want it to be subscription based.



Again, that was only example on the way I spend my money. A personal example to illustrate one of the type of players that would quit based on it being a p2p model alone, with no other considerations other than that. I'm not the only. There are people out there that prefer f2p games and people out there that enjoy p2p games and look for their chosen genre exclusively. There are also people that would stop playing because they can't afford subscription based games. These are groups that would be lost. What is not, and what you tried to turn it into, is a view on how I want to socialize and whether or not I want new players to enter in the game. I am pro-new players, but i think this suggestion would do more harm than good. If it's implemented the way OP suggests, it would become a pay to play private server. If it it is implemented in a such way where nothing really changes and there is still a ridiculous power gap, I don't see how charging more for the exact same product offers much benefit.



There are things you can change without going p2p. Beefing up the farmable gear so that the difference between them is roughly the same as the difference between g16 and regular r9 is a start. For a brief moment, that was the case. And during that time I saw a lot more people talking about pvp, although I'm not sure if that translated as well into actual numbers. You can put in more engaging content into the low game, so that people's first impression of this game isn't that it's empty or full of botters. Both of those are bad looks. There are all kinds of things that can be done. If I went to weight watchers, and told them I want to lose weight but can't give up chicken. Do you really think that means I can't lose weight. Or are there all kinds of healthy chicken recipes, and things like moderation, that will allow me to eat chicken and still lose weight.

You know what? You make some good points but you always SEEM TO start it off with something to try to appear like you have the upper hand. Its like I simply have to be inferior.

For example:

No, because I still play f2p mmos. That part was about how I spend money on games, not how I choose to socialize on them. You're the one that read stuff into it that wasn't there.

In case you cant reasonably figure out where I got what I said before the example from, That is where I got it from.

You dont SEEM TO realise simply being a Moderator automaticly based on Avatar alone gives you the upper hand. That is NOT criticising you as a Moderator. That is pointing out to you the effect that is given to you without doing anything but being yourself.

WHERE did I ever accuse of reading something into anything? Yet, it is emphasised that I did as if such an accusation had been previously made by me.

Thank you for the clarification on what you had said about how you like to play. It was a bad example then, because I honestly couldnt believe how it sounded - which was clearly not what you meant to say, as you have clarified now for everyone that bothers to read all this.

I accept your opinion.

I also await the opportunity to hear the opinions of others. b:thanks

ovenusarmanio

Brillance - Raging Tide wrote: »

You know what? You make some good points but you always SEEM TO start it off with something to try to appear like you have the upper hand. Its like I simply have to be inferior.

For example:

No, because I still play f2p mmos. That part was about how I spend money on games, not how I choose to socialize on them. You're the one that read stuff into it that wasn't there.

In case you cant reasonably figure out where I got what I said before the example from, That is where I got it from.

You dont SEEM TO realise simply being a Moderator automaticly based on Avatar alone gives you the upper hand. That is NOT criticising you as a Moderator. That is pointing out to you the effect that is given to you without doing anything but being yourself.

WHERE did I ever accuse of reading something into anything? Yet, it is emphasised that I did as if such an accusation had been previously made by me.

Thank you for the clarification on what you had said about how you like to play. It was a bad example then, because I honestly couldnt believe how it sounded - which was clearly not what you meant to say, as you have clarified now for everyone that bothers to read all this.

I accept your opinion.

I also await the opportunity to hear the opinions of others. b:thanks

It was a response to your pre-emptive strike. I am saying you read more into that example then was there, and maybe that's why you thought I'd accuse you of putting words into my mouth. To me, someone who isn't pre-emptively striking and looking for their ideas to be beat down on, wouldn't read it as anything more than what it said. That if I had to spend money on a game, I'd spend it on a single player one rather than subscription based. I even put in there how I felt pressured to play pay-to-play games, and didn't want that pressure. I still don't know how someone can take that as being anti social. Especially when in the same conversation with you, I pointed out that this game is new player hostile. And that PWI is doing a poor job of keeping customers it could keep under existing price structure, because of this. Losing them far before they reach endgame.

Saying you maybe read more into it than it is, wasn't trying to put you down. It was the truth. I honestly don't know what made you think I was anti-social or that I don't want new players. And I know what the mod border means, if you remember me as a poster before I became a mod. You'd know that I wasn't always on the best behavior. I was behaved far more often than not, and generally not known as one of the worst trolls. But I could be obnoxious when i wanted to be. And that I have toned this down considerably but I am not perfect. But I try to avoid calling people stupid now. I'm far from a saint or perfect though. Thats all off-topic though, so I digress.

Brillance - Raging Tide

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

It was a response to your pre-emptive strike. I am saying you read more into that example then was there, and maybe that's why you thought I'd accuse you of putting words into my mouth. To me, someone who isn't pre-emptively striking and looking for their ideas to be beat down on, wouldn't read it as anything more than what it said. That if I had to spend money on a game, I'd spend it on a single player one rather than subscription based. I even put in there how I felt pressured to play pay-to-play games, and didn't want that pressure. I still don't know how someone can take that as being anti social. Especially when in the same conversation with you, I pointed out that this game is new player hostile. And that PWI is doing a poor job of keeping customers it could keep under existing price structure, because of this. Losing them far before they reach endgame.

Saying you maybe read more into it than it is, wasn't trying to put you down. It was the truth. I honestly don't know what made you think I was anti-social or that I don't want new players. And I know what the mod border means, if you remember me as a poster before I became a mod. You'd know that I wasn't always on the best behavior. I was behaved far more often than not, and generally not known as one of the worst trolls. But I could be obnoxious when i wanted to be. And that I have toned this down considerably but I am not perfect. But I try to avoid calling people stupid now. I'm far from a saint or perfect though. Thats all off-topic though, so I digress.

"You're the one...why you thought I'd accuse you..."

My pre-emptive strikes are not necessarily exclusive to, or even meant for, the person I may be replying to. Its up to anyone to pick up that mantle and run with it if they want to - mistakenly so being the exception.

Switching from a MMO to a single-player, duh!

I still have that thingy from the Mystic forums where you and Kossy are talking about 6-pack abs or is it just a big beer gut with a picture of a 6-pack tatooed on it saved somewhere on my PC. xD

No one is perfect.

Everyone is clueless.

Have a nice night! b:thanks

surv

Anyone who is in business is doing so to make profit. The facts are easy to see. Just walk into walmart and see how crappy stuff is made so customers have to come back. Pwi is looking more and more like the typically high end over greedy cooperation. Even though all the stuff we get is just pixils on our screen the owners look at what they made last year and try to double it this year. They are trying to make our best ever online game a robot that just takes our money and they spend it. Ultima Online took over 30 bucks a month of mine for 7 years. PWI didn't get more then 9 bucks a month until the last 4 months when I bought some nice stuff for my Wife. I divided the amount I spent on the game by the months and still under 20 a month. But its slowly stopping again. If there is a good bank and orb sale again I might but other wize I will not spend one cent on this game again.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

The OP wants it to be a game of skill.

Games can still require skill if there's higher tiers of gear, would you honestly invest as much time in something if there was nothing to work for?


I don't see that much benefit from yours, it would still take a long time to pay off. And it doesn't address the heart of the problem with the difference between r9 and g16, which is that more casual people cannot compete and the bar of entry is very high.

Casuals shouldn't get to compete with people who invest large amounts of time or money.


Not everyone has the time farm that you do. Lots of people complain on these forums about it would take them a year or more to get their r9, while others can get it within a week. They might be exaggerating but without knowing more about them personally, whose to say.

See the above.

I don't think alternative models would devalue the gear as bad as the OP's model would. But I think that making it still take just as long and having just as little balance between g16 and r9, and what a casual and hardcore player can do, defeats the point of making it p2p in the first place.

I don't understand why you or anyone else thinks easy to farm gear should be able to compete with top of the line gear, which G16 actually does rather well.



^
That was the reductio ad absurdum. It was presented as if it was my opinion you were arguing against, but it was my argument taken to absurd extreme. OFC not everyone would leave just from the game becoming p2p alone. Nor did i even say most. I listed several different types of people, and then questioned if the people this attracted would outweigh the number that left.

I'm still scared of your Harry Potter spell.


Never said it wouldn't. I do question if it would be enough. You were the one arguing that r9 would lose little, if any utility, and that people therefore would not quit in significant numbers for that reason. Although some of our disagreement is likely because of two different visions of this as a p2p game.



Agreed.



I've liked many of the updates to PWI. And some of the updates I didn't enjoy, I would have if they'd simply adjusted some of the content.

That's neat.

Whatever.

You don't want to play with me?

Very red.

ovenusarmanio

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

Games can still require skill if there's higher tiers of gear, would you honestly invest as much time in something if there was nothing to work for?

No, that's why I dislike OP's suggestion. Still, you can have a game with a ton of balance that mostly comes down to differing strategies and not gear.

Casuals shouldn't get to compete with people who invest large amounts of time or money.

That mindset right there is how games end up with small communities of mostly veterans just mowing down newbies. Not something bigger and more sustainable. That's why a lot of games die. Nobody wants to be cannon fodder, that isn't fun. And if you're going to have to them compete for rewards, that's doubly important. Otherwise it's just a game that's churning out newbies left and right. The biggest games adjust for skills a variety of ways, extra credits gives a good example when discussing noob cannons. Which is why I find it absurd that the suggestion here would be the way it was done. Just because there is no reason they shouldn't get kills sometimes, doesn't mean you gotta nerf everyone to their level and make it pointless to invest extra time or money. There's a middle ground there, a balance.

I don't understand why you or anyone else thinks easy to farm gear should be able to compete with top of the line gear, which G16 actually does rather well.

I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to earn themselves an advantage but it shouldn't be an automatic win. There is no fun in that for the new and casual players, and it chases people away when they have to compete with that for resources even after getting their toon to endgame level wise. Many of the more successful games recognize this and make it so that you can compete, but the person with the most time invested is still is probably going to win. You can still get lucky or be super good and win sometimes though, and that's encourages you to improve your stuff instead of just giving up and quitting.

In purple.

Zanryu - Lothranis

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

In purple.

You can, the game I know of that pulls this off well has skins to farm rather than gear, but even then I know of people who have grown bored because there's really nothing to work for.


I'm all for balanced gear but people would still need SOMETHING to work for. (Not that PWE knows how to balance anything.)

R9 in equal refines vs G16 in equal refines isn't an automatic win, R9 has the advantage but it could still end up a stalemate.

Brillance - Raging Tide

Zanryu - Lothranis wrote: »

You can, the game I know of that pulls this off well has skins to farm rather than gear, but even then I know of people who have grown bored because there's really nothing to work for.


I'm all for balanced gear but people would still need SOMETHING to work for. (Not that PWE knows how to balance anything.)

R9 in equal refines vs G16 in equal refines isn't an automatic win, R9 has the advantage but it could still end up a stalemate.

Who is going to work for a stalemate? I mean I guess many have, thinking its, "almost as good"b:chuckle

Who is going to play very long when they realise that the "winners" bought their win?

People will play a game for fun. Im not sure what people buy a win for. Pride in the awesomeness of their wallet?
or, the massive amount of free time they have on their hands?
or, their ability to code addons to use on the game so that they get every good drop that they want?
or, their amazing ability to scam any 'friends' they used to acquire? *shrugs*

In the end, I would buy my win too - with a subscription and being able to have fun grinding instances and NW/TW for the same gears, refines and shards (provided my ability to acquire those gears is within a reasonable time frame of the next power-creep release of gears).

Sure, make me CS marriage packs, flyers, mounts, and stuff like that; but the vital crux of a game should never have a 'for sale' sign on it, unless its amongst the player base themselves, imho.

The way things are - one would have to give us a pay check to want to play this game, and be your cannon fodder for you. It is what it is. b:thanks

oVenusArmanio wrote: »

I didn't say that people shouldn't be able to earn themselves an advantage but it shouldn't be an automatic win. There is no fun in that for the new and casual players, and it chases people away when they have to compete with that for resources even after getting their toon to endgame level wise. Many of the more successful games recognize this and make it so that you can compete, but the person with the most time invested is still is probably going to win. You can still get lucky or be super good and win sometimes though, and that's encourages you to improve your stuff instead of just giving up and quitting.

This. +1000 b:victory

$oul_Reaver - Archosaur

sadklsnas

Cursing - Sanctuary

I don't know how they expect to attract new players. I have been playing the game for several years. If I am out of game for more than a couple of weeks, I have no idea what is going on when I get back. How can new people get involved in a game like that. How are they suppose to be able to catch on much less catch up. And now this new horizon nightmare. That closes the door on new players altogether.

$oul_Reaver - Archosaur wrote: »

sadklsnas

No offense but those of us from capitalist countries do have pride in the awesomeness of our wallets (handmade, Italian leather wallets). I don't keep with the Joneses, the Joneses keep up with me. When they can.b:victory

jjbrendan

Hiya all here my Main character is Sage Cleric level 103 and I enjoy playing in squad keeping members alive and reviving as required. Supporting Barbarian is fun as he tries to keep agro away from other squad members.

I find player against player Boring as there seems to be no experience or spirit gained from defeating another player in combat. Where is the fun when there seems to be No Reward.

SweetieBot - Lothranis

jjbrendan wrote: »

Hiya all here my Main character is Sage Cleric level 103 and I enjoy playing in squad keeping members alive and reviving as required. Supporting Barbarian is fun as he tries to keep agro away from other squad members.


I find player against player Boring as there seems to be no experience or spirit gained from defeating another player in combat. Where is the fun when there seems to be No Reward.

This looks like a NECRO!

jjbrendan replied to a message that was 4 months 1 day 17 hours old.

Any thread over one month (30 days) old is considered to be a dead thread and you're not supposed to post in them. The person you are replying to probably doesn't care any more or can no longer be found on the forums. The topic itself could be out of date. Next time just make a new thread.

Let's see how long it takes for a mod to close this

opkossy

A necro on a completely unrelated tangent.

Sometimes I truly wonder...

Oh and this is closed now.