Which, this, is a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion I understand the arguement, and it has merit, and is logical. It just kinda bugs me. I don't ever want to see anyone that plays for free (if it happens) left out in the cold because they lack a certain shiny thats more powerful and is beyond their control.
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
Which, this, is a perfectly reasonable difference of opinion I understand the arguement, and it has merit, and is logical. It just kinda bugs me. I don't ever want to see anyone that plays for free (if it happens) left out in the cold because they lack a certain shiny thats more powerful and is beyond their control.
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
That is one form of a 'Pay Wall'.
Where progress is minimized or outright halted based on the player's choice of not to buy the items.
That example is a player made pay wall.
There are Game made pay walls as well, like content that can't be completed without the items.
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
I think treating them well and letting them see that they are just as valued incentivises them to spend money in the store. Maybe one day I'll test that hypothesis, or maybe cryptic will take my idea and run w/ it.
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
edit:
Oops - I read this statement wrong.
I disagree.
I think treating them well and letting them see that they are just as valued incentivises them to spend money in the store. Maybe one day I'll test that hypothesis, or maybe cryptic will take my idea and run w/ it.
Cryptic is a business they have a goal to make money so I doubt it.
Cryptic is a business they have a goal to make money so I doubt it.
I don;t think this tangent is even close to the topic. You disagree? Fine, but I'm not getting into a fruitless discussion on a code of ethics I find to be disturbing and against how I believe customers should be treated by a business, especially one with so wide a base. My opinion isn;t gonna change, and neither will yours.
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
Yeah, in a F2P game the ones that do not pay as much shouldn't be able to compete as easily as those that do. Some F2P games get this quite right and are successful. While I agree, though, we are not at F2P yet.
Cryptic is a business they have a goal to make money so I doubt it.
Thing is, steady and increasing sales over extended periods of time is how companies grow, compete and make more money. Tryng to cash grab is short sighted and harmful. I want Cryptic to pursue the former, so I can play STO 5 years from now.
By intent, Cryptic has produced a game that is accessible to nearly any player, even those of limited skills.
I doubt that they would change their business model to one which, by definition, limits the player base.
Cryptic does not pander to the 7334 gamers. There's not enough money there and they are too fickle a group when there are plenty of other console FPS's and whatnot that are taking up space. That niche is saturated already. It would be suicide for them to try to compete in that market with this game.
That wasn't the topic The topic is OP ships being sold. You can;t even stay on topic Mr. OP
Yeah because my whole post was a joke to begin with. I want more ships period and I want them tier 5 do I actually want them overpowered no of course not I dont want the game ruined do I think the Rhode Island is as bad as some people make her out to be no I dont. I think most C-store ships should follow the Excelsior Refit and MVAM style they offer something different and unique while not being overpowered.
That's not the model they're using with the RI, I already went over that lol.
Yes but I dont think you could say that Rhode Island is unbeatable by ships of its tier is it harder to beat sure but its not anything impossible, Like I said many have really overblown its power
Application Rejected lol. Back on Topic More C-STORE Goodies for all.
Sure, you can have all the variants and ships you want as long as they fall in-line with whatever tier ship class they are. Meaning they have the same number of BO skills to use and no console to make them different.
When people discuss grinding in game for these ships. Let me pose this question about the RI. If they cost emblems to buy while in game, then how does someone who just started STO and is able to buy tier 2 ships, where in the hell would they grind emblems from? CANNOT. Just like the forums are 2-3 % of the total STO population, Dstahl mentioned 80 % of the players have not reached captain with their first toon. So, none of these players would be able to grind for emblems at all ever.
Until the model for the game changes from P2P to F2P, I cannot agree to any ships being put into the C-store that are different then their ingame counter parts. The BO layouts can be twisted or what not, but you cannot give a console that is moveable to other ships or more bo slots.
Sure, you can have all the variants and ships you want as long as they fall in-line with whatever tier ship class they are. Meaning they have the same number of BO skills to use and no console to make them different.
When people discuss grinding in game for these ships. Let me pose this question about the RI. If they cost emblems to buy while in game, then how does someone who just started STO and is able to buy tier 2 ships, where in the hell would they grind emblems from? CANNOT. Just like the forums are 2-3 % of the total STO population, Dstahl mentioned 80 % of the players have not reached captain with their first toon. So, none of these players would be able to grind for emblems at all ever.
Until the model for the game changes from P2P to F2P, I cannot agree to any ships being put into the C-store that are different then their ingame counter parts. The BO layouts can be twisted or what not, but you cannot give a console that is moveable to other ships or more bo abilites.
You do realize that they are redoing all game currencies in late September then anyone at any rank will be able to get the ships through ingame means and do you really think Im going to spend real money on a ship thats nothing more than a piece of TRIBBLE skin keep on dreaming
Yes but I dont think you could say that Rhode Island is unbeatable by ships of its tier is it harder to beat sure but its not anything impossible, Like I said many have really overblown its power
Its the precedent that it sets. Up till now all ships have been given drawbacks to offset their buffs, like the Excelsior. The RI doesn't do that. No, its not an I Win button, but its precedent sets the stage for such a thing. If they get away with it now, then they'll use the RI's model as justification for doing the same thing to T5. It's already begun. Notice how people rationalize the RI because of the NX and Oberth? Those weren;t all buff and stuff either, and the buffs they did get didn't significantly outclass the Miranda. Well here we are, where do you think we're going?
So I agree, the RI is not the big hullabaloo. Its precedent is the problem, and why I believe it (and others like it) must be opposed.
You do realize that they are redoing all game currencies in late September then anyone at any rank will be able to get the ships through ingame means and do you really think Im going to spend real money on a ship thats nothing more than a piece of TRIBBLE skin keep on dreaming
I don't believe they have eluded to what the new in game currency will be or how it will work. Hence, its hear say and we have to look at the current system in place.
That is what the C store was intended for originally to buy variants skins and customes. Not to give out more powerful ships. I pay a subscription to play this game of 15 dollars a month. That is the average for both P2P and F2P models. It's not even fair to put more powerful ships in c store when my subscription is paying for its creation. I'm not paying 20 bucks on top of my subscription to get a ship. If I wasn't paying at all to play then no issue possibly spending money on a ship then. But, everyone has to be under the same model. You may be a lifetimer and your LT is now done and you want to pay money that fine but the STO model is stil P2P.
Perfectly reasonable and I think all C-store ships regardless of tier should be able to be acquired through ingame means approximately a month after release so those who pay get it first
Actually this is a valid point. Many of us paid extra to get a "headstart" on the game. Same here, people willing to pay to get early access to something before they make it available to be earned in game.
TBH, I haven't seen an argument from the x.5 naysayers that holds any merit, either.
Actually this is a valid point. Many of us paid extra to get a "headstart" on the game. Same here, people willing to pay to get early access to something before they make it available to be earned in game.
TBH, I haven't seen an argument from the x.5 naysayers that holds any merit, either.
The C-store is supposed to be optional items that appeals to the true trekkies. The TOS uniform or something from a particular era. My one fleetmate has 27 costume slots for his on toon ( like wtf damn). It should not be the area YET where more powerful versions of ships come from. If the game model was F2P and i had the option to take the basic model or go to a c-store like option to buy the better version of it then yes i would be tempted. However, I am paying a subscription for access to all ships and content in game. I should not be subject to a class of ships I cannot get without paying more yet.
Since when is wishy gone? oh well i'll miss wishy.
The only thing i can ever say is i don't see why a klingon T5 Cruiser has to have the same strength and Weakness as the T5 Fed Cruiser. In the shows they had ships that are more powerfull than each other.
In RL if you pilot a fighter you don't have the well its made by x country so nothing can kill it. You have Training that teaches you to be the best pilot you can and sometimes the enemy just bests you.
I know in an mmo it is fantasy, I say As long as they put it in game if you want to fly it so be it. To each his own.
Actually this is a valid point. Many of us paid extra to get a "headstart" on the game. Same here, people willing to pay to get early access to something before they make it available to be earned in game.
TBH, I haven't seen an argument from the x.5 naysayers that holds any merit, either.
A 2 day headstart, during which our pre-order bonuses were not available which resulted in those intent on rolling a Joined Trill character not getting a headstart. Not even close to 30 days. Such a thing would be acceptable in a F2P game, not a P2P game.
I fyou havn't seen an arguement against Tx.5 I'd say you havn't been following the whole debate. Nevertheless I will attempt to summarize as bext I can.
The RI is objectively and demonstrably more powerful than its Equivalent, the Nova and as such represents paying for power when no free in game method is available or confirmed to be on the way (as promised would be the case with all c-store ships). While the RI doesn't amount to much on its own It sets a dangerous precedent which dev comments confirm will be followed. Paying for power upsets game balance for all players, whichever side you are on and the arguement is this is not acceptable in a game we are already paying for and have been paying for expecting, and experiancing to date, a level playing field (though there is some debate on just how level the playing field has actually been, though until the RI you havnt been able to buy a clear advantage).
Over the life of STO assurances have been made and then ignored by the devs on c-store content, many amount that to broken promises, bad enough in and of itself.
Ask yourself, would you be happy to lose a PvP match because you were unable to fork over more cash on top of your subscription? Or not getting the best loot from a Fleet Action (also, the current plan to obtain the Enterprise-F Odyssy class ship is via a Fleet Action series)? Or not getting a place in an STF group because the other guy going for the place you are has paid more? Or you have earned the STF rewrds on your own merits and someone comes a long and does it more easily because they paid more? Or new content is balanced against Tx.5 ships effectively resulting in your wallet nerfing you?
This is not rampant speculation, this comes largely from the evidence supplied by the devs themselves, while things like T5.5 a likely and reasonable conclusion based on that. Paying for power may well have a negative effect on the game, something I have experianced first hand on other games. Not just in a way that players don't like but doesnt really matter, it can hurt it financially which is bad for ALL players.
Those opposed to paying for power are speaking up now before it becomes a big issue and harder to fix, prevention is better than cure.
Since when is wishy gone? oh well i'll miss wishy.
The only thing i can ever say is i don't see why a klingon T5 Cruiser has to have the same strength and Weakness as the T5 Fed Cruiser. In the shows they had ships that are more powerfull than each other.
In RL if you pilot a fighter you don't have the well its made by x country so nothing can kill it. You have Training that teaches you to be the best pilot you can and sometimes the enemy just bests you.
I know in an mmo it is fantasy, I say As long as they put it in game if you want to fly it so be it. To each his own.
RL comparisons hold little water on the subject since this is a game and not a simulation.
I know myself as a player i'd probably buy the ship in the c store but still play the new content. To me with a system like that everyone wins. Also if you use some sort of in game currency then you can buy it by earning that currency in game. The C-Store would be good as well. I think the three ways I talked about would appease everyone and would cut down quite a bit on the complaining
-Tony
If they'd actually adhered to this, I wouldn't be complaining, I'd be buying. But they haven't, despite saying they would, so I'm not.
However, I am paying a subscription for access to all ships and content in game. I should not be subject to a class of ships I cannot get without paying more yet.
Actually, you are paying just for the access to the game service.
Unless they make a series of quests or other game-play that is dependent on a strictly C-Store item, then I do not see the problem. Everything in the C-Store, to date, is entirely optional to pay real money for in order to be successful in the game.
As long as this remains true, keeping C-Store items from never being a requirement for game-play, I say pump as much into the C-Store as desired!
I'm still waiting to purchase some awesome Dreadnought variant pieces! Please!? Seriously, I want some Dreadnought variant pieces to customize my ship and I will pay for them.
Got to love the mods. Fanboys are allowed to troll and be as insulting as they want. But people with genuine grevances get infractions and their threads deleted.
Comments
Assuming we were playing an F2P you think think that someone who would play for free and pay for nothing at all in the game should be able to compete EASILY with someone who buys everything and invests real money into the game ??? Sorry thats not good business sense
Where progress is minimized or outright halted based on the player's choice of not to buy the items.
That example is a player made pay wall.
There are Game made pay walls as well, like content that can't be completed without the items.
I think treating them well and letting them see that they are just as valued incentivises them to spend money in the store. Maybe one day I'll test that hypothesis, or maybe cryptic will take my idea and run w/ it.
edit:
Oops - I read this statement wrong.
I disagree.
Cryptic is a business they have a goal to make money so I doubt it.
I don;t think this tangent is even close to the topic. You disagree? Fine, but I'm not getting into a fruitless discussion on a code of ethics I find to be disturbing and against how I believe customers should be treated by a business, especially one with so wide a base. My opinion isn;t gonna change, and neither will yours.
Yeah, in a F2P game the ones that do not pay as much shouldn't be able to compete as easily as those that do. Some F2P games get this quite right and are successful. While I agree, though, we are not at F2P yet.
Thing is, steady and increasing sales over extended periods of time is how companies grow, compete and make more money. Tryng to cash grab is short sighted and harmful. I want Cryptic to pursue the former, so I can play STO 5 years from now.
I doubt that they would change their business model to one which, by definition, limits the player base.
Cryptic does not pander to the 7334 gamers. There's not enough money there and they are too fickle a group when there are plenty of other console FPS's and whatnot that are taking up space. That niche is saturated already. It would be suicide for them to try to compete in that market with this game.
That wasn't the topic
Yeah because my whole post was a joke to begin with. I want more ships period and I want them tier 5 do I actually want them overpowered no of course not I dont want the game ruined do I think the Rhode Island is as bad as some people make her out to be no I dont. I think most C-store ships should follow the Excelsior Refit and MVAM style they offer something different and unique while not being overpowered.
Yes but I dont think you could say that Rhode Island is unbeatable by ships of its tier is it harder to beat sure but its not anything impossible, Like I said many have really overblown its power
Sure, you can have all the variants and ships you want as long as they fall in-line with whatever tier ship class they are. Meaning they have the same number of BO skills to use and no console to make them different.
When people discuss grinding in game for these ships. Let me pose this question about the RI. If they cost emblems to buy while in game, then how does someone who just started STO and is able to buy tier 2 ships, where in the hell would they grind emblems from? CANNOT. Just like the forums are 2-3 % of the total STO population, Dstahl mentioned 80 % of the players have not reached captain with their first toon. So, none of these players would be able to grind for emblems at all ever.
Until the model for the game changes from P2P to F2P, I cannot agree to any ships being put into the C-store that are different then their ingame counter parts. The BO layouts can be twisted or what not, but you cannot give a console that is moveable to other ships or more bo slots.
You do realize that they are redoing all game currencies in late September then anyone at any rank will be able to get the ships through ingame means and do you really think Im going to spend real money on a ship thats nothing more than a piece of TRIBBLE skin keep on dreaming
Its the precedent that it sets. Up till now all ships have been given drawbacks to offset their buffs, like the Excelsior. The RI doesn't do that. No, its not an I Win button, but its precedent sets the stage for such a thing. If they get away with it now, then they'll use the RI's model as justification for doing the same thing to T5. It's already begun. Notice how people rationalize the RI because of the NX and Oberth? Those weren;t all buff and stuff either, and the buffs they did get didn't significantly outclass the Miranda. Well here we are, where do you think we're going?
So I agree, the RI is not the big hullabaloo. Its precedent is the problem, and why I believe it (and others like it) must be opposed.
I don't believe they have eluded to what the new in game currency will be or how it will work. Hence, its hear say and we have to look at the current system in place.
That is what the C store was intended for originally to buy variants skins and customes. Not to give out more powerful ships. I pay a subscription to play this game of 15 dollars a month. That is the average for both P2P and F2P models. It's not even fair to put more powerful ships in c store when my subscription is paying for its creation. I'm not paying 20 bucks on top of my subscription to get a ship. If I wasn't paying at all to play then no issue possibly spending money on a ship then. But, everyone has to be under the same model. You may be a lifetimer and your LT is now done and you want to pay money that fine but the STO model is stil P2P.
No 24 hour moderation team. I'd do it as part time pay if they hired me.
Actually this is a valid point. Many of us paid extra to get a "headstart" on the game. Same here, people willing to pay to get early access to something before they make it available to be earned in game.
TBH, I haven't seen an argument from the x.5 naysayers that holds any merit, either.
I wish Wishstone was still around but yeah...Cryptic needs a night shift haha.
The C-store is supposed to be optional items that appeals to the true trekkies. The TOS uniform or something from a particular era. My one fleetmate has 27 costume slots for his on toon ( like wtf damn). It should not be the area YET where more powerful versions of ships come from. If the game model was F2P and i had the option to take the basic model or go to a c-store like option to buy the better version of it then yes i would be tempted. However, I am paying a subscription for access to all ships and content in game. I should not be subject to a class of ships I cannot get without paying more yet.
The only thing i can ever say is i don't see why a klingon T5 Cruiser has to have the same strength and Weakness as the T5 Fed Cruiser. In the shows they had ships that are more powerfull than each other.
In RL if you pilot a fighter you don't have the well its made by x country so nothing can kill it. You have Training that teaches you to be the best pilot you can and sometimes the enemy just bests you.
I know in an mmo it is fantasy, I say As long as they put it in game if you want to fly it so be it. To each his own.
A 2 day headstart, during which our pre-order bonuses were not available which resulted in those intent on rolling a Joined Trill character not getting a headstart. Not even close to 30 days. Such a thing would be acceptable in a F2P game, not a P2P game.
I fyou havn't seen an arguement against Tx.5 I'd say you havn't been following the whole debate. Nevertheless I will attempt to summarize as bext I can.
The RI is objectively and demonstrably more powerful than its Equivalent, the Nova and as such represents paying for power when no free in game method is available or confirmed to be on the way (as promised would be the case with all c-store ships). While the RI doesn't amount to much on its own It sets a dangerous precedent which dev comments confirm will be followed. Paying for power upsets game balance for all players, whichever side you are on and the arguement is this is not acceptable in a game we are already paying for and have been paying for expecting, and experiancing to date, a level playing field (though there is some debate on just how level the playing field has actually been, though until the RI you havnt been able to buy a clear advantage).
Over the life of STO assurances have been made and then ignored by the devs on c-store content, many amount that to broken promises, bad enough in and of itself.
Ask yourself, would you be happy to lose a PvP match because you were unable to fork over more cash on top of your subscription? Or not getting the best loot from a Fleet Action (also, the current plan to obtain the Enterprise-F Odyssy class ship is via a Fleet Action series)? Or not getting a place in an STF group because the other guy going for the place you are has paid more? Or you have earned the STF rewrds on your own merits and someone comes a long and does it more easily because they paid more? Or new content is balanced against Tx.5 ships effectively resulting in your wallet nerfing you?
This is not rampant speculation, this comes largely from the evidence supplied by the devs themselves, while things like T5.5 a likely and reasonable conclusion based on that. Paying for power may well have a negative effect on the game, something I have experianced first hand on other games. Not just in a way that players don't like but doesnt really matter, it can hurt it financially which is bad for ALL players.
Those opposed to paying for power are speaking up now before it becomes a big issue and harder to fix, prevention is better than cure.
RL comparisons hold little water on the subject since this is a game and not a simulation.
If they'd actually adhered to this, I wouldn't be complaining, I'd be buying. But they haven't, despite saying they would, so I'm not.
Unless they make a series of quests or other game-play that is dependent on a strictly C-Store item, then I do not see the problem. Everything in the C-Store, to date, is entirely optional to pay real money for in order to be successful in the game.
As long as this remains true, keeping C-Store items from never being a requirement for game-play, I say pump as much into the C-Store as desired!
I'm still waiting to purchase some awesome Dreadnought variant pieces! Please!? Seriously, I want some Dreadnought variant pieces to customize my ship and I will pay for them.