Phaethonas

I have to say that I probably was in the wrong here I should have paid more attention to what was said between the lines (From a related NQ announcement, -some emphasis added-) As NQ does not consider purchasing in-game currency with real money, p2w, then there is absolute no reason for them to even consider any of my (or similar) arguments. Acknowledging, or defining if you wish, that p2w includes purchasing in-game currency with real money, would allow for the DAC system to be implemented, but with the necessary accompanied mechanics that would make sure it would not turn p2w. But that is not the case. What NQ considers and what not p2w, should not be the real question, and in practice is not important actually. What players consider p2w is the real question. Cause when (and if) the players won't consider playing or leave DU cause they will think it will be/is p2w, then these people won't come back because NQ defines p2w differently. And the question that arises is; What definition the vast majority of players have, if any? I wish NQ, DU and its community the best, but DU is not for me. For me DU will be p2w. Plain and simple. And unfortunately, (for NQ and DU), from my experience I'd say that most players have a similar definition to me.

Although I will agree (once more) that there isn't much more to tell, especially with you and people like you, who have no arguments, even though they say they do, I will say one thing. You may have any opinion you like, you may even have any opinion you like about me, but you can't lie. And in the context of forums, it is easy to prove that you lie. All I have to do is to quote you! So..... As a reminder! With at least one person voicing his/her concerns about your attitude, after that comment of yours. So please, do tell me that your "argument" wasn't that as I am not a backer I should not voice my opinion!

Actually you haven't given any example or any explanation. I literally checked just to make sure. In short, your arguments to what I have said were; a) "You are not a backer, I am, so shut up", b ) " you are wrong, I am right", c) "you haven't played EVE, I have" and d) "there are other ways to make ISK at EVE". Nothing substantial, and absolutely no numbers, which by the way you have made fun of. Kinda at least. Am I trying to convince you? No! SO, I'll agree that we have nothing else to talk about.

First of all I made 5 arguments, not 2!! Secondly, I don't need to have played EVE! Reading about it and making some associations, is enough. I don't need to have had cholera in order to talk about cholera! (I am not implying that EVE is cholera, I just named a disease that came to my mind. I am often making these parallelisms because of my work). Are my associations incomplete, wrong, or whatever? OK, how about you correct them instead using the argument "I play EVE, you don't, I know better, you don't". Which is juvenile at best. Thirdly, even if you want to call it an "opinion" my opinion is based on some thoughts, some examples, etc. Your opinion on the other hand is not based on that either. Fourthly and more importantly. I repeat myself; Or should I assume that you omitting this part of my comment was an admission of some sort? To which, I am unsure!

Why? Why are you so confident? Have they explicitly said that they will not allow people to turn DU in p2w? Cause I haven't seen any such statement. Direct me to that, and I will become confident as well. Till that time, I am skeptical, and I am worried. And I'll say again; Had DU been any other game I wouldn't bother. But DU seems good enough to me, to try.

1) My "opinions" are based on numbers! And numbers don't lie! 2) You never argued against my arguments. All you (plural) have said; "You know shit, we play EVE we know better", without making a counter-argument. As such, if someone has an opinion and not an arguments, that would be you (plural). 3) The DAC is set up to prevent the black market as said by NQ. If you want me to be 100% accurate, their goal is twofold; a) prevent the black market, b ) allow players with more time than money to play the game. And according to NQ's official announcement; (emphasis added) As such, what I am saying is simple; NQ wants the DAC system? OK, let's have the DAC system. But as NQ recognizes that this system is not perfect, let's try to get it as perfect as possible. Or as I put it previously, there is no need for collateral damage. Battle the black market, but cover any possible loophole that would allow the DAC system to be abused, out of its intended purpose, and be turned to p2w. Is my idea of regulating the DAC market, bad? I am fine with that. From the very first moment I recognized that this could be the case. But this does not undo the fact that the DAC is a non perfect system that needs an addition (or more) to become better. 4) Regardless how else ISK is being made at EVE, ISK can be made in huge numbers with PLEX. And by planning ahead, 6-12 months, will allow the prevention of any inflation as well. So in the end, it doesn't matter that Alliance [A] will make 1 trillion by selling PLEX, it matter that it will make 1 trillion more!! And as proven, ISK wins wars. 5) OK, let's assume that I am wrong, why are you so eager to just state that I am wrong? You bring nothing more into the conversation other than; "You are wrong", "you are still wrong", "still wrong", without even explaining in reality why I am wrong!! Other than perhaps the "you don't know". And I'll ask again, why are you so eager to point my wrongdoings? OK, you did so, once, twice, thrice, why continue? Am I ranting? OK, let me! I am not ranting to you, am I? My last comment, to which you answered, did not quote you! So it is either that (which would be kinda crazy and you don't seem crazy to me), or.....I don't know, you want these p2w implications. Then again, I could be wrong, and for a third option to be on the table. Present it! Why do you bother that much?

And you completely overlooked this Funny thing? I had it bolded and underlined, yet you still missed it. Now as for how many whales there are at EVE? Hmmmm let's see. The prime reason behind any system like DAC/PLEX is that people go to the black market. If these were a few, no-one would bother with adding a system to discourage the black market. But these people are enough for CCP to introduce the PLEX after years without it, and NQ to introduce it from day -x. Before launch that is. We can assume that 100% of these people will start trading in the PLEX/DAC market, as they are willing to trade in the black market with its dangers, it makes sense to opt to trade "legally". After all, once more, this is the idea behind PLEX/DAC. But perhaps more importantly, people who were discouraged from trading in the black market, because of its dangers, now won't be discouraged and start trading in the legal market. So, if i) X = the amount of people who would be willing to trade in the black market, ii) Y = the amount of people who would not be willing to trade in the black market but now are willing to trade in the legal market and iii) Z = the total amount of people who will trade in the legal market, then, Z = X + Y ---> Z > X And as X is more than enough to catch the attention of Blizzard, CCP, ACE (that makes Crowfall) and NQ, it makes sense for Z to be......a lot of people.

Actually I am planning at doing something like that, if I bother at making an organization and not joining one. That said, the game is too early in development for me to join/pledge at the moment. I want to see some things through first, including (primarily) if their tech works in practice. It seems to me that they are making something good, they seem very competent to me, so I am interesting enough to start theorycrafting various stuff, including an organization with direct democracy. Perhaps the most decisive factor of whether I will make this organization or not is if my cousin gets interested into DU. I will try to sell it to him when I am 100% sold. I estimate that this will be in late alpha/early beta. For now I am working at the constitution which currently has 18 Articles (WIP).

No matter what people may want to pass as true, p2w is p2w and in context of this OP, yes p2w has a definition. From my experience people who will insist otherwise are just those who want to stretch what is p2w and what is not, in order to use p2w, without having to deal with the negative repercussions of it. That said, p2w is not the same for all games though. So, while p2w can be defined as "one person or group of persons, gain(s) an advantage on other players by means of real money, who could not equalize (in due time),", that is differently applied in different games. For example sandbox MMOs and theme parked MMOs are vastly different and as a result this same p2w definition will be applied differently. So the question is, can the DAC be used, or rather abused, in a p2w way? In order to answer that, and taking into account that DU isn't even in open pre-alpha yet, we will have to rely at EVE which is the game with which the best comparison can be made. Currently you can buy from CCP 2800 PLEX for $100. The current price for PLEX is 3 million ISK per PLEX. This means that with the 2800 PLEX you can have 8,400,000,000 ISK. Assuming that the average whale spends $200 per month that would mean that the average whale would get 16,800,000,000 ISK per month. That means that in a year an average whale would make 201,600,000,000 ISK Now If you have just 10 whales in the same guild/organization/alliance who are willing to spend that money (which are average for whales), then you get 2,016,000,000,000 ISK. From what I am reading, during WWB at EVE, one alliance attacked another cause they were given 1 trillion ISK, also recently, the biggest heist at EVE happened with an estimated worth of 1.5 trillion ISK, which resulted in an alliance's dissolution. Put that into perspective; 5 people can be preparing for war for the duration of a year and amass the necessary wealth to buy another guild's services, or alternatively, they can be 10 people for the duration of just 6 months. And exactly because this is being done in the passage of time, they will have more than enough time to sell these PLEXes. It could be argued that the other/enemy alliance could just farm the same amount of ISK. Even if that is true, farming ISK is something that both guilds can do. As such the p2w guild doesn't have 2 trillion, it has 2 trillion more, and the only way for the other guild to equalize is for them to be willing to be in the PLEX market. Someone may say that this is a exaggeration. I beg to differ. We all have read stories about EVE and how far people have gone at this game (see "metagame"). As such planning a war 6-12 months beforehand is nowhere near an exaggeration, in EVE's context. Alas even in my mind it is not an exaggeration, to plan for a conflict 6-12 months beforehand, if you exclude any p2w and "metagame" elements. As such, EVE is pure p2w, plain and simple. And I haven't even touched the skill injectors yet, as these will not be at DU. Now, is this scenario possible or at the very least plausible, at DU's case? It looks more than plausible to me, hence measures need to be taken in order for this not to happen. In other words, NQ needs to work on a solution before launch. As they need to make crystal clear that this kind of gameplay behavior will not be acceptable. Unless it is acceptable. But NQ needs to make clear where they stand, in order for people to make an informed decision of whether to buy their game or not, and to know what game they are buying.

I am pretty sure the core counts as an element. I remember that I have seen a video in which it is called an element. I can't answer the other question.

Here we go once more; Had I thought that the DAC system was p2w I wouldn't even bother and I wouldn't even look back. Just as I did with Crowfall and many other games. I am mentioning Crowfall as a recent example and one with particular similarities with DU. Instead, I think that the DAC system has potential to be abused. That means that it goes beyond the reasons it was created for. It was created for two reasons; a) allow people who don't want to pay with money for their subscription, to still be able to play the game. These people it could be argued that have more time than money and they want to buy their subscription in-game with in-game currency (e.g. quanta). b ) To combat the black market. and that's it! People though, can abuse this system and turn it to p2w. As such "they will add" a third objective; let's pay2win! That c) is not something that NQ wants, neither is something that NQ announced during its kickstarter, as such it is (probably) something that the backers don't want. So, instead of going down the road of that c), I propose the exact opposite; c) take (further) measures that will reassure that DAC won't become p2w. Had I though it was p2w (and that was the end of it) I would not have proposed something like that, cause it would make no difference. Lastly, I don't want to change the system. I never said that NQ should abandon their system. Quite the opposite, despite my personal preferences, I admitted that this is the system they chose, and I accept it...... ....that said, I proposed an addition to it. Is it possible for NQ to take my opinion (or yours for that matter) into account? I hope so! tl;dr? This is why I am here! Cause I have hopes, for both DU and NQ.

Yes, I know that Plex and skill injectors are not the same, this is why most of the times I am referencing to them at the same time and their added p2w potential. In which cases I always am mentioning a "disclaimer", that you can't tell how much of the p2w is coming from the plex and how much is coming from the skill injectors. Also, in theory you support my fears, in practice you claim they would need " hundred of thousand of dollars". OK even if this is true (although I have read many EVE players' comments that disagree with you, but let's get past that atm), you can't know how the economy will work in DU in order to assure/know that it won't happen at DU as well. It is possible that in DU you will need only a few thousand (let's say 3k) to determine the outcome of the conflict. Which a guild can easily amass. That said, it is more likely, because of the gameplay mechanics, that it will be more difficult (and more expensive?) than at EVE, but this is also theory. So where do we stand? To something that I have stated from the very beginning; a) It is theoretical possible for the DAC to be abused as a p2w mechanic. b ) DU gameplay mechanics (in particularly seen in comparison with EVE's equivalents), would most likely reduce the severity of this p2w potential, that the DAC have. c) As such it is possible that there is nothing to worry about, but also it is possible that there is something to worry about. The critical factor that will determine things will be the economy, which at the moment is essentially impossible to predict. In this context, is it so strange to ask to be proactive and add an additional measure to make things even more difficult for the p2winners? I don't think so. DO I know for sure that things will turn this way? NO! Do you (or anyone for that matter) know that they won't? NO! It is impossible to know at the moment. That said, I am leaning towards the opinion that things may go wrong (towards p2w), because I trust the opinion of the EVE players that say that EVE is p2w and not those who say otherwise. Granted, I may be wrong, but so can you. So, there are two ways to proceed from here; One is to patch things and fix things if and when they go awry, and the other is to be proactive. For whatever my opinion weights, I vote for pro-action. And I suggested a way (regulating the DAC market), and that is the end of it. As I said earlier, we are spinning in circles the last few messages, as opinions don't differ that much, if everyone pays attention to what the other side really said. In the end of the day, some think that it is an unlikely scenario and there is no need for pro-action and the other side, thinks that there is need for pro-action.

Thanks mates for the replies, but what about "friendly collision"? Let's assume there are 4 X-wings in space from the same organization. If there is friendly collision, they will be in formation, if there is no friendly collision these 4 will be able to occupy the same X,Y,Z coordinates, be on top of each other and seem like there is one X-wing. For an actual example of what I am saying think how GW2 works.

I have numerous times explained that the context within the DAC becomes p2w is not that of the individual player but that of a guild/organization. And frankly, I have seen many people arguing that the PLEX is p2w. Perhaps primarily because it is accompanied by the skill injector system. Also, I have read the opinions of both groups. That is, EVE players that say that PLEX/skill injectors are p2w and those who disagree. Frankly the former convince me because they have arguments, while the latter just throw the ball of court.

*sigh* I will say once more, that my argument is not against DAC per se. Yes, I don't like it. Yes, if I was making a game I would not choose it. But that is not in/my argument. I can accept that NQ chose something with which I disagree and move on. What is argued is; a) whether or not it can be turned into a p2w element, b ) how easily it can be abused/converted into a p2w element and how severe this will be and c) in case you don't like p2w elements, how will it be possible to prevent that. That said, I will agree that by this point this has been discussed in depth. I am sure that NQ has seen all points and arguments and will proceed.....well we shall see how they will proceed. PS The alternative financial models (like b2p and f2p) have failed. So there is no arguing whether any new MMO, especially made by indie studios, should have a subscription or not. It should.

And yet it is!

Which is what I am saying. "Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game advantage has the potential to become p2w." Nothing more, nothing less. Or if you want me to become absolutely accurate, I focus it a little and say; "Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game currency has the potential to become p2w." Am I worried though? Yes! Perhaps primarily because you may NQ more than I. After all I found out about DU like 2-3 weeks ago. Will they listen? I hope so. I have said many times, that my suggestion to regulate the market is just that, a suggestion. I also have said, that I am certain that NQ may find better solutions or polish mine further. I also have said that I would trust NQ with algorithmic problems, that may arise from these solutions, more so than other gaming studios, because of their purely scientific past. One last thing; I once considered backing crowfall, and I have used crowfall as a negative example many times now. If I didn't thought that DU had potential, that NQ may listen, etc then I would have gone the crowfall way. I'd moved on and would not look back.

I disagree and most players disagree that the PLEX, at least, is benign. I urge you to say the same at any MMO/gaming forum/social media and see for yourself. Granted, the DAC/PLEX isn't the strongest or "most traditional" p2w element, and DU not having an equivalent of skill injectors, helps. But taking into account that quanta (the in game currency) will matter, gaining quanta this way, will also matter. In the end it can be put as simple as that. That said, every time a simplification is made, part of the truth is lost.

I never said that DAC is p2w. I have gone to great lengths and have said many times that, "p2w potential" is quite different from "p2w element". Also, I have numerous times said that the DAC will be abused and gone beyond its purpose. Implying that it is not a p2w element. Lastly, the DAC system if it was a p2w system per se, it could not have been corrected, as such seeing me that I want to "make it better", proves that I consider it a non p2w element, per se, that has potential for being abused and turned to p2w. Is this clearer now? PS The DACs purpose from my understanding, reading comments from NQ employees and from players, is twofold; a) Shrink the black market and b ) allow people who want to buy their sub time in-game to do so, instead of paying a "traditional subscription". To that I just add an additional objective; c) make it as less p2w as possible.

The only one who spawns cancer is you. I have never personally attacked anyone. Unlike you. As such I will completely ignore anything and everything you say from now on.

I have made a distinction between the effect of the DAC and how easily it is going to be to turn it into p2w. Taking quotations from different comments (and different contextes) is natural to confuse you. Let me explain; People will be able to turn DAC into p2w easily cause they can simply buy it with real money and get relatively easily quanta for it. Yes, they will wait for them to be sold and yes in DU they will need to be near the market. But that is relatively easy. The other is the severity of p2w. So, OK now someone made 1 million quanta fairly easy, how much power did he acquire? You are correct, ""player buys quanta and wins the game" is not that easy, and that is the "second easy". Perhaps "easy" is not the best word after all (despite being used by the both of us), but instead "weak"/"strong" is better. So, the DAC is "easily" abused as a p2w element, but it is a "medium" p2w element in its severity, because of the DU gameplay. As such, if we make it "difficult" to be abused, combined with its "medium" p2w potential in severity, the DAC is becoming almost no p2w or as mrjacobean put it, it gets to "an acceptable distance away from P2W for the vast majority of players". Now my suggestion to regulate the DAC market revolves around this "difficulty". Make the DAC more difficult to be abused and used out of its purpose, as a p2w element. Lastly, the severity won't be "weak" or anything near that cause to put it simply, quanta seems that will have real value. It won't be like SWTOR's credits for example.

Well for starters if you hire other people for real money to manage and play your account you are violating most games' TOS, which is a bannable offense (if you are caught of course). If this is what you mean by "hire people", and not let's say, the "meta game" that EVE has. Even so, the more important thing is that the DAC as is, is not an acceptable distance away from p2w for the vast majority of players. And truth be told, neither of us has any real evidence on their statements, like an official and representative poll. So we won't find out till some months after launch (assuming that the DAC remains as it is), in which case people will speak their minds in public forums, social media and the like. And even then, I am sure that many people will still disagree on the matter, but unfortunately for them, reality will kick in. If indeed the DAC system (as is now) proves to be considered p2w by the vast majority of players, then they will simply leave and DU will die. Which will be unfortunate. As so many times I have said, DU is neither WoW, nor EVE to survive such a hit. Although I don't have hard evidence for my statement, that the vast majority of MMO players associate the PLEX system with p2w, like a representative poll, I do have some arguments; a) the moment crowfall announced its PLEX version (called VIP membership) and its version of skill injectors (called skill tomes), some of its more hardcore fans/supporters rushed in defense of crowfall "assuring" people that it is not p2w. Even before anyone suggesting that it is p2w!! Hence, we understand that people associate p2w negatively and that people associate these mechanics with p2w, and b ) what has been written about EVE. And there is so much ink there. People have argued in both sides, but as to which one is prevailing, that is to the eye of the beholder I suppose, as long as there is no representative poll among the MMO community, something of course which is really hard to do.

No it is not necessary to do so. But if you don't you will have a system that can be turned easily to p2w. Now will this p2w element determine the outcome of wars? No-one knows, but my estimation (judging from other games) is that it will. Pay special attention here that I distinguish how easily DAC can be turned to p2w (which will be very much so without any regulation), and the effect it will have (e.g. "big", "small", "will determine conflicts" etc). Those said, I will point two things; 1) Regulating the DAC market correctly will not hurt the game what-so-ever. Think about it, what is the purpose of the DAC? The answer is for players who don't want to pay for subscription time with real money, to have an alternative. If all these people get their DAC then the DAC system is not hurt. Regulations, not only may not affect that negatively, but also could affect it positively. For example, imagine that the various restrictions, overall, could guarantee that the DACs won't be stockpiled, but instead reach those who want to buy their sub time in-game! And this is possible. 2) You wanna talk business stand point? OK, let's do that. What do you think will happen when DU launches and people start abusing the DAC system? As I said earlier it is very easy to do so; You buy 10 DACs for 180 euro and you make a shit ton of quanta (did I spell that right?). Now depending the severity of this (e.g. how much more powerful the person or the organization that traded DAC in order to get quanta, is) people who are not p2winners won't like it. The moment a conflict between two medium sized organizations is won because the winning organization bought quanta via the DAC exchange, people will quit the game! And as I said before, DU is not EVE nor WoW to survive something like that. Most people don't like p2w. When DAC turns p2w, even on a medium severity, people will leave the game. So, please do tell me, that there is no need to regulate the market, even if you look at this from a business stand point and nothing else! Or do something else, that will move the DAC all the way out of the p2w area. Regulating the DAC market was an idea, nothing more.

As I said, numerous mechanics in DU will make it difficult for the DAC to become p2w, but the (small) potential is still there. As such I just suggested to regulate the DAC market to make this even more difficult. Nothing more, nothing less. I am glad that we agree that the DAC market would be beneficial to be regulated PS I don't understand what part I haven't answered!

Which is exactly what I have said! DACs are not p2w, DACs have the potential to be p2w. So, as DACs can be turned into p2w, I suggested ways to make this more difficult, and if possible to prevent that altogether. Which frankly is highly unlikely, but it doesn't hurt to try