Pang_Dread
-
Posts
253 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Pang_Dread
-
-
No, their allies were no match, even Severance sent out an advisory to stay out because they saw the market flood with Plex. Honestly, the only recourse was someone in Corporation A to have the necessary IRL funds to compete with the flood of Plex Corporation B dumped on the market.
This is a historical encounter in EVE Online where one of the most experienced corporations was defeated while many of their allies knew there was nothing that could be done without one of their own members sinking a lot of money into the game. This is why these corporations quit the game -- they did not fight back or just chalk it up to "we were defeated". They saw it as a battle they couldn't win because there were no Wall Street bankers in their corporation.
Then like I just said in the post you quoted, thats bad game design if the game allows that to happen. You pointed out a great example of pay 2 win, but that still doesn't mean this game or any other game that's uses the same subscription model will be poorly designed as well. That can happen in games with or without DAC or PLEX or w/e if pure numbers ie zerg is the best easiest way to win.
-
My definition is the most literal and I walk back to EVE to explain:
Corporation A and Corporation B fight over territory in nullsec.
Corporation A (the defenders) are winning and have the home field advantage.
Corporation B (aggressors) are all but spent. Then suddenly one of the members buys $50,000 in plex.
Corporation B smokes Corporation A and makes them go extinct. Corporation B quits the game in a swarm.
This is a true story. Corporation B, quite literally, "PAID" IRL money to "WIN" in the game. You can't possibly find a more literal definition.
Being as DAC will follow a very precise path of PLEX in this game, it will be pay to win in the most literal sense.
But guild A still had options (or should have in a well designed system). They could have called in allies to help, they could have used espionage and spying to undermine the other guild. Any number of in game mechanics are available. There's also likely more a case of bad design if the game allows paying cash to have that much power and less to do with actual RMTs existing or not. If numbers ie zerg is the ultimate strategy to win then that's a design flaw that will hurt the game regardless of RMTs or not.
-
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.
-
You're absolutely correct, that is equivalent. Which is exactly why we need a design philosophy that promotes cooperation OR a model where there isn't a clear "win" -- which is much harder to actually come up with than to spit bars about.
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'm compromising as people have said there cannot be a list of stats. 1 fuel tank is say 1000m3 so with 2000m3 one would assume it has 2 tanks and if it says fuel capacity 0m3 then it's obvious Somone is trying to sell you a ship with no fuel tank. If somebody is in the market for a long range exploration ship then they might be looking for a ship with 4000m3 fuel capacity, (just for example). It's just something to go by as it would be better if than nothing. maybe there could be a test flight system or somthing aswell and I really liked the idea of the ratings system that Somone suggested. If someone uses the same components to try and copy your ship they are still going to have to try and construct it the same way
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.
-
Hehe no that will not be the case.
The race to build a TU will be the first arms race in DU.
or the race to get away from the Arkship and safezone asap, then start to build stuff.
-
... What? =D
I guess you don't really get math.
I'll have to find a way to put this into some other terms, then...
The reason skill limits on time don't matter is because at a given time, the economy as a whole will have some given level of technological progress available to both parties. While this may seem like it's an "equalizing factor", it just means the type of ship will be the same. Sure, we're both fighting with ships made out of cardboard because nobody has figured out titanium alloys yet. Does that make the fight fair? Heck no, because guess what... While your clan of 10 people work your asses off to cobble together one ship, I can buy 900 of them, and hire people to crew them, to completely and utterly shit on your faction, because I happen to be a multimillionaire in real life...
Is this clear enough for you or do I need to express the same facts in yet another form?
[EDIT-sidenote: funny how neither side of this "debate" seems to know how to think properly, but it's ok, I'm fine with thinking for both parties...]
[EDIT2: Yes, I'm aware that I'm extremely sassy, snarky, sarcastic and obnoxious -- it's just a part of my charm]
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.
-
Are you familiar with the notion of initial value problems? You're essentially ignoring the constant terms here.
Sure, group X, with nothing but the sweat of their brow can reach the same military strength as group Y can, given enough time (KEY THING TO NOTE).
The point is that group Y can amass that same military might basically within an arbitrarily short span of time, limited only by A ) the amount of real money they are spending per unit time and B ) Skill tree progression, whose change per unit time is constant. We can more or less ignore B for the purposes of this discussion, because it's the same constant factor for both parties and we're comparing the derivatives.
End result, group with real-life clout gets army basically instantly if they want, group without gets rekt because they can't put resources on the field at the same rate.
As for where the money goes? It gets diffused into the economy. Where it goes doesn't matter since it gets distributed evenly (unless you literally buy from your enemy like a fucking idiot, haha xD).
So yes, it is indeed pay-to-win. And I'll stop here because the rest is me repeating myself.
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...
-
Last time I am answering.
I gave you all the answers you wanted.
I also explained YOU can contact NQ if you dont trust us.
We are not obligated to wade through all the posts looking for that one answer.
Thats on YOU to do if you dont trust us.
+1
It is known.
-
You can make your organization win a war. You buy DACs, you use them directly to buy ships, crew, ammo, etc. (I mean, either directly or through some proxy medium of exchange, it doesn't matter)
You then use these resources to straight-up out-gun your opponents.
My main original point being that if you set up the rules of the game such that this kind of advantage seeking behavior is a part of your gameplay and the world is not somehow forced to be symmetric and fair, you WILL end up with some degree of pay-to-win, and DAC or no DAC isn't about removing this aspect, because it can't.
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.
-
I hope they go with a fully open system without any limits or caps except for time, this allows a much more devised play, and not just a cookie cutter design.
Regarding catcing up, i think you thinking is flawed. lets assume they go with an EVE style system and simplify it a bit.
Player A has Battleship, Cruiser, Frigate and Carrier at level 5
Player B has Battle ship at 5 all else at 1
Since both has Battleship 5 they pilot Battleships equilly well with in the skill system, the fact that player A can fly other stuff is irrelevant.
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.
-
-
Welcome to the Arkship Resort, Mr. Pang_Dread.
Thank you for checking in. Your reservation appears to be in order. You will be on the 74th level of the Arkship. The pool and workout room are located 55.7 lightyears away on planet Alioth, and complimentary freeze-dried breakfast will be served in approximately 10,000 years. Here is your room key and personal Nanoformer.
Would you like a porter to take your luggage to your room?
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.
-
That seems fair. But in total, this feature is needed for proper communication. It also gives a sense of immersion.
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.
-
Ubisoft : Watchdogs, The Division, For Honor, The Crew, Steep, Grow Home, Child of light, Zombi U
Electronic Arts : Unravel, Titanfall, Fuse, UFC, Kingdoms of Amalur, Star wars online
Activision : Destiny
Tencent : Blade & Soul, Smite, Monster Hunter
The scared publishers is part of the past for most of them, especially after Star Citizen's popularity.
If I remember, someone at NQ already said that some publishers were ready to get their backs otherwise.
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.
-
Well, it depends how many scripts a Control Unit can have. That's the point. You'll need to have both PILOTING macros and the GUNNING macros, on the same control unit. So it depends on many things, like, if the DPUs (Lua boxes) will have a limit on how many scripts they can process at one time and / or if they have preset limits on how many lines of commands can go in them depending on their size.
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.
-
The point is, the guns have to "spotlight" an area on an enemy ship's voxels. If your ship and the eneym ship going in circles around and and round, your belly guns won't be able to hit the enemy ship, because they have no LOS (Line of Sight), but your top guns will be able to hit.
So, the real subject should be, how many macro-commands should a control unit hold.
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.
My Community Has Withdrawn Our Pledges
in General Discussions
Posted
You're being too narrow minded. The payment model is one part of the whole game. Yeah DAC and PLEX are the same so... theres still a WHOLE game of mechanics and systems that the Dev can if able and willing to make it so it won't be Pay to win as your last game.
Look we've all had bad experiences in past games. My bad exp was in ArcheAge, game started great then went to pay2win RNG box hell. So now when I go to follow another game and there are similar models or systems to that game do I immediately freak out stop following it or make posts condemning it? Nope, I look at the WHOLE game not just cherry pick that one part that is similar to past game.
Bottom line, a LOT of games use this model, NO they are not all pay2win.