does F2P dictate power creep?

ursusmorologus · April 2013

does F2P dictate power creep? The need for new revenue means new items, especially items that provided a modicum of competitive advantage. Armitage. Jem'Hadar carrier. Etc. Items bought last year are at a disadvantage, and simply holding even requires getting the new stuff. Additional items are constantly introduced, and so the process is constantly continuing along. Ergo, F2P requires power creep. Yes/No?

thecosmic1 · April 2013

Every game gets power-creep over time whether it's FTP or Subscription. But even then power-creep really only matters in PvP - the comparison between fighting players. Power-creep is meaningless in PvE - the AI is at the whim of the Dev team.

ursusmorologus · April 2013

hrm most of the multiplayer games that I have experience with have had very stable balance, most of them get more balanced. Only a couple have had balance become worse. This one seems to escalate with every new feature. I have also seen it happen with other games that use items for revenue boosts, such as battlefield. I suspect that it is a byproduct of the revenue model, and other models put more emphasis on long-term stability.

thecosmic1 · April 2013

My experience is the opposite. Most games put in X, and then eventually increase the AI foes to balance the creep from X - or throw a much harder challenge at you because you got X. Given more time games will then put in Y, and then increase the AI foes to balance the creep from Y, and so on.

ursusmorologus · April 2013

I dont care about the monsters powercreep. They aren't buying items.

thecosmic1 · April 2013

As I said, character power-creep is meaningless in PvE - because the Devs simply change the rules for the AIs. MMOs constantly give you better and better items, and then change how you need to use them.

Power-creep only maters in PvP - where individual characters need to be somewhat balanced against each other.

ursusmorologus · April 2013

thecosmic1 wrote: »

As I said, character power-creep is meaningless in PvE - because the Devs simply change the rules for the AIs. MMOs constantly give you better and better items, and then change how you need to use them.

Power-creep only maters in PvP - where individual characters need to be somewhat balanced against each other.

That's not true. Players are rewarded for being best, against all target types. Otherwise nobody would care about the better items.

Wells vs Vesta vs that Vulcan sci ship, for example. In reverse chronological order, I believe.

zerobang · April 2013

Power Creep: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw

lordmalak1 · April 2013

Money talks.

Only a fool would spend money on an inferior item, so the devs are forced to create superior items that players will spend money on.

To the Q: NO, even if STO was P2P the devs would still need to create items that sell. (see above)

hevach · April 2013

There was quite a bit of power creep in the game before F2P came along. The number of C-store ships has been increasing, but there were plenty of them before F2P. The weapon drain change early on, level cap increase, the addition of a DPS bonus for each quality level, unique weapons and sets, the ground combat overhaul, duty officers (these were announced long before F2P even though they were released right before the transition).

The reputation system added some more, and the trait system is going to be quite a bit, but it's just continuing a trend that started at launch, it's not a trend of its own.

mimey2 · April 2013

Does F2P mean they need a constant source of income? Yes.

Does that dictate needing power creep/MUDflation? No.

I believe that while adding in new things is ok, I have no qualms with it, it doesn't mean every new thing HAS to negate everything that came before it.

I'm not saying that adding in new things can't provide unique and new advantages compared to other things. But it doesn't mean it has to be the 'new standard' either.

The Andorian Escort is a good example. It provided some unique, interesting advantages, but it hasn't totally shot every other single escort to worthless status.

The Bug is a bad example of what really sucks. It has SO many advantages, SO much going for it without ANY negative drawbacks whatsoever (and you're lying through your teeth if you consider it 'balanced' in regard to other ships) that it really is the best escort hands down, and bar-none. There's no real way in my opinion to excuse the Bug because it IS the best.

Yes it can, will, and does die in PvE and PvP, but it has everything going for it, destroyer/smaller cruiser level hull, cruiser level shields, BoP level base turn and inertia values, etc; yet it gives up virtually nothing for it.

Rep systems are a bad sign of power creep as well. If we had only one to choose from, it wouldn't be so bad. We would have to pick a rep, and only ever get one rep, or only at least gain the bonuses from one rep. So it would be like picking your spec, you have to make choices and sacrifices. But we're soon to gain a 3rd rep, and who knows how many more in the future.

Think about a year or so from now, when we have 4 or 5 reps going all at once, along with an extra Outpost or two for fleets, decking out ships with loads and loads of very/ultra rare Mk XII stuff and using 3 or so extra powers and many extra passives that a brand new toon won't have.

Can F2P dictate power creep? Yes. Should it? No.

Things can still be balanced relative to everything else we have now. New things should NOT totally invalidate all the stuff we had before.

Heck, I'm surprised some of the lockbox ships aren't getting outclassed more by the newer ones.

ursusmorologus · April 2013

There are many multiplayer games where new maps are added without escalating the overall power levels (granted there many games where it does do exactly that).

EG, you can get a new map in COD, and it wont affect the balance across guns at all. It might shift the preference to another style of combat, but you dont suddenly need new guns. On the other hand, BF3 will introduce a new gun that is clearly superior to the rest, in order to pull in sales. So the dynamic is led by the revenue model, not by the environment.

thecosmic1 · April 2013

ursusmorologus wrote: »

That's not true. Players are rewarded for being best, against all target types. Otherwise nobody would care about the better items.

That's not true at all. Most people can kill AI foes simply by flying in a circle while using autofire. Even on Elite setting you seldom need to do more then hit Tac Team once to finish the job. This is true whether I'm using a free T5, C-Store T5, C-Store T5.5, or Fleet Module T5.5 ship.

Cryptic could introduce T6 ships which can take out a Tac Cube in 3 hits instead of 5. All that will do is mean that at some point you'll encounter a Super Tac Cube that needs 5 hits to defeat. The PvE power-creep is offset by additional encounters that equalize it.

In PvE it's all meaningless. PvE is always about getting better gear - whether you buy it, grind for it, or buy boxes of cereal that have code cards in them to get super-great new gear for your game.

In PvP it's another matter. The T6 would have an advantage over a T5.5 just as a T5.5 has an advantage over a T5.

lordmalak1 · April 2013

I much prefer the COD model. Spending $$$ on new environments keeps the game fresh without destabilizing weapon balance.

maxvitor · April 2013

It has nothing to do with F2P. advancement comes at the expense of sacrifice in any system, users can not expect newer and better gear while expecting their older gear to stay competitive, they can't have it both ways, it's either accept that the old gear will be outdated in favor of the new to advance or stay locked into a fixed level with no possibility of advancement simply to guarantee old gear supremacy.

nx420 · April 2013

It has nothing to do with f2p. STO has been selling top-end ships in the C-Store long before the game went f2p. It has to do with the developing/publishing co.'s business model. Cryptic/PWE's business model is obviously to make as much money as possible ... period. As previous posters have noted, there are other, more successful f2p games that do not have the power creep that STO does. Some other ftp games actually only sell vanity and aesthetic stuff in their item stores and are much more successful than STO.

alopen · April 2013

mimey2 wrote: »

Does F2P mean they need a constant source of income? Yes.

Does that dictate needing power creep/MUDflation? No.

I believe that while adding in new things is ok, I have no qualms with it, it doesn't mean every new thing HAS to negate everything that came before it.

I'm not saying that adding in new things can't provide unique and new advantages compared to other things. But it doesn't mean it has to be the 'new standard' either.

The Andorian Escort is a good example. It provided some unique, interesting advantages, but it hasn't totally shot every other single escort to worthless status.

The Bug is a bad example of what really sucks. It has SO many advantages, SO much going for it without ANY negative drawbacks whatsoever (and you're lying through your teeth if you consider it 'balanced' in regard to other ships) that it really is the best escort hands down, and bar-none. There's no real way in my opinion to excuse the Bug because it IS the best.

Yes it can, will, and does die in PvE and PvP, but it has everything going for it, destroyer/smaller cruiser level hull, cruiser level shields, BoP level base turn and inertia values, etc; yet it gives up virtually nothing for it.

Rep systems are a bad sign of power creep as well. If we had only one to choose from, it wouldn't be so bad. We would have to pick a rep, and only ever get one rep, or only at least gain the bonuses from one rep. So it would be like picking your spec, you have to make choices and sacrifices. But we're soon to gain a 3rd rep, and who knows how many more in the future.

Think about a year or so from now, when we have 4 or 5 reps going all at once, along with an extra Outpost or two for fleets, decking out ships with loads and loads of very/ultra rare Mk XII stuff and using 3 or so extra powers and many extra passives that a brand new toon won't have.

Can F2P dictate power creep? Yes. Should it? No.

Things can still be balanced relative to everything else we have now. New things should NOT totally invalidate all the stuff we had before.

Heck, I'm surprised some of the lockbox ships aren't getting outclassed more by the newer ones.

This is right on. As an example I would point out that while leveling a toon to 50 where a character was competive in PvP up until lvl 49 even against characters of a higher level, the second that same toon hits 50 he is cannon fodder at best until he goes out and earns alot of this junk. (purple doffs, accx3 gear, STF space set bonuses, rep bonuses, etc.) The powercreep from the elitists carries over to those who just want to be competitive in PvP.

stirling191 · April 2013

alopen wrote: »

This is right on. As an example I would point out that while leveling a toon to 50 where a character was competive in PvP up until lvl 49 even against characters of a higher level, the second that same toon hits 50 he is cannon fodder at best until he goes out and earns alot of this junk. (purple doffs, accx3 gear, STF space set bonuses, rep bonuses, etc.) The powercreep from the elitists carries over to those who just want to be competitive in PvP.

That's true of almost any title (be it F2P, B2P, or P2P) in either content realm (PvE or PvP). Those who have been at endgame, and have been able to progress through said endgame for a significant amount of time, are going to be more powerful than those just hitting the end of the leveling progression.

markhawkman · April 2013

I don't blame creep on F2P. MMOs always have it, otherwise the old players would get bored.

voxinvictus · April 2013

Most MMOs need some sort of power creep just to keep people playing. People tend not to notice their own mastery of a game as anything except boredom, so you've got to keep the bar moving in terms of challenge. And of course, if you just add more challenge without better rewards, people tend to choose the path of least resistance.

Whether you're F2P or subscription based, if people don't need to keep playing, they have no reason to keep paying. Keeping them playing means harder content and better rewards.

calamintha · April 2013

thecosmic1 wrote: »

As I said, character power-creep is meaningless in PvE - because the Devs simply change the rules for the AIs. MMOs constantly give you better and better items, and then change how you need to use them.

If we completely ignore the existence of Starbase 24, Gorn Minefield, etc.

does F2P dictate power creep?

Comments