Pang_Dread

I have defind what Pay to Win means to me multiple times, including the post you just quoted. For playing devils advocate you sure seem more engaged then just playing that role. Strawman, cherry picking, condescending tone. You have fun playing, I'm not going to play that game though.

I just did that though in my last post and you talked it down like it wasn't a valid reply. Forming an alliance of guilds to over come a super zerg guild isn't promoting cooperation? Again thats not even much to do with P2W anyways as that's always the case in games like this. The "win" factor also I addressed by saying there is no permanent or insurmountable win that can be achieved by paying cash, hence NOT Pay to Win. At worst Pay to progress faster, not win outright. See the "win" part of Pay to Win also denotes the insurmountable factor, ie if you can't overcome the advantage with in game available mechanics and systems then and only then is it P2W.

I don't see why it would be difficult to have a list of at least basic default stats once you construct a ship. Like you build a ship, them you run some kind of scanning function and it outputs a short list of relevant stats. Could be based on the amount of voxel space used, materials used, what modules you used, complexity and type of scripts used. We already know there's a system in place to determine how a ship works based on how we build it, so having some kind of function to determine some stats that buyerss would find relevant doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Its sandbox game after all and tools like that are the Devs job to give us, IMO.

or the race to get away from the Arkship and safezone asap, then start to build stuff.

That's talking about Zerging though... which has nothing to do with P2W. Can make a zerg with or without RMTs. Besides going back to my initial post asking those questions, what exactly are you winning? Yeah you claim a bunch of territory with your insta corporate sponsored zerg but how long can you hold it? Your one guild bought 900 ships.. ok an alliance of 10 guilds with 2500 ships is coming to wipe you out and they insta bought their zergs as well. Silly example sure but just as silly thinking one guild can just buy everything and "win" the game. Yeah I just think you got side blinders on and not really looking at the whole picture, point was there are MANY factors that go into these games so can't just ignore facts because they don't work for your argument. Don't need to be a math expert to know that based on experience in this genre nothing NQ or this game has to offer so far is Pay 2 Win. Anyways there's always a few chicken little's running around portending the end is nigh because of RMTs and warning of the P2W apocalypse, you're this forums versions, gratz on that I guess.

Yes of course ignore the equalizing factors that diminish the argument against it being P2W That fact that there is time based skill progression, stats and things that can't just be bought instantly is what takes away the P2W factors, but yes lets just ignore those inconvenient facts...

+1 It is known.

They still have to fight though against other players who got that same stuff either the same way or through playing the game. they don't live in a vacuum and all those credits they spent don't just disappear they get used to buy stuff as well. Like said at worst its pay to progress faster or pay to be lazy but not Pay to Win.

Lots of points already made but the simple test I use to determine P2W or not is: All factors in Pay to Win must occur. Paying is the constant but what exactly are you winning and how? What insurmountable advantage are you gaining by throwing rl cash into the game? Are you able to buy in game items (gear, weapons) that can't be gotten any other way? Those IMO are the most important questions when talking P2W if you want to be real about it and not just run around like chicken little the second you see any kind of RMTs. In this game and many like it items must be produced by players. There is no NPC vendor you pump a bunch of credits into and get gear and weapons from. Resources still have to be gathered by players and items need to be assembled by players. There also isn't anything that can't be acquired by simply playing the game. At worst its pay to progress faster but again nothing you gain from buying a bunch of DACs and selling them in game will give an insurmountable advantage. If gear was the end all be all then might have a point but its clearly not as skills, stats, attributes and such also play a role in character power. This is a sandbox game, not some arena instance grinder heck combat in this game isn't even the end all be all experience. Besides if one is so strict and non-tolerant of paying for stuff in these games not sure what games you can play anymore nowadays. There a clear examples that are P2W, there a clear line that they shouldn't cross and honestly I haven't seen anything yet form this Dev and this game that comes anywhere close to that line.

Yeah like others said you buy a package and that gives you access to Alpha or Beta. The live game is when you'll be paying a sub. Don't even think need a source for that, its pretty much standard and common knowledge at this point. and yeah the servers and infrastructure they use during testing likely won't be a "full version" of what they will at live hence lower costs that will have already been covered by the KS money.

Yeah this. Its not like there is only one single linear path of progression. If my guild is recruiting fighters, I'll recruit those with the highest skills in fighting(as well as many other factors ofc), not just the most skilled overall outright. Can also make it so initial skill lvls go faster and as you get higher skill it goes slower. So new players can quickly catch up and vet won't have an insurmountable advantage.

Meh. been there done that with that land grab bs in past game like ArcheAge. Never again. Soon as I hit open air I'm gone, far away from the rat race as possible.

nah I think passive training is better in games like this. If active training then you simply are creating grinds and tedious gameplay. If there's a choice between active and passive then there's no real choice at all. The cookie cutter method will be active grinding of skills. Instead of just naturally playing the game you would be going out of your way to do things you wouldn't normally just to get more skill points.

Would imagine it would be incorporated into the chat system by default. Seems like a pretty standard feature that shouldn't cost any extra dev time or money.

Really digging the concept of this guild. Not super strict rules but still some organization to have fun and play how you want. Will def keep you guys top of list when I'm ready to commit to a guild.

eek 10,000 years? Better be one hell of a breakfast.

Proud to say as of last night I'm officially a backer. I pledged for a gold package and don't regret it for a second. Can't wait to see how this all progresses and to help the Dev see their vision come to light.

yeah this, in other games been generally not in favor in game voice chat. But it clearly fits with the theme and setting of this game to have some way to voice chat in game. Though i still say it shouldn't just be totally open. Fitting with the theme maybe they could make it so if someone wants to talk to you, you have to hit accept first and allow it and open a channel with them, then if the person turns out to be a annoying or disruptive can mute them again. That would go a long way to reduce the spam and annoyances and negatives people have with in game voice I think.

None of those games really stands out as being "risky" though, think that was the point. Cookie cutter FPS's and MMOs for the most part. The bad reps are warranted and still warranted, IMO.

yeah that was my thinking as well. If theres a budget or limit to the modules will have to think about how you want your ship to behave. Like do you want more weapon control but then you have to sacrifice other things like speed and maneuverability. Really makes it so ships can be made to suit our needs and not just have all the same cookie cutter ships.

Don't think I've read everything about the LUA scripting yet but if its as open as I get the feeling it will be then perhaps could have multiple macro sets to control weapons at the various positions of your ship. Like one macro for left side guns and another for the right side? i don't know much about it yet like said but seems like something that should be possible.

I read the games backstroy about how Earth was destroyed and it refers to "thousands" of Ark Ships built to take as many people as possible. So question is will we maybe someday discover other Ark ships? Obviously some or even many would be lost due to bad luck and random spacey bad things, but would think at least some other Ark ships survived as well. Even if its just story fluff might be cool to find out what happened to other Arks. Whether it be new starting points for new characters or new NPC factions for future expansion content hoping we learn more about the other Ark ships somehow.

Not really the same idea. In mine the name chosen would be the permanent name. The first to discover/claim it would be the one to pick a name from the list. Then that's the planets name forever. It sounds ridiculous to me that a planets name would constantly change. Ownership and control changes sure but not the name.

I can live with that if I don't have to run into planet Harambe or Planet Pepe the frog.