Phaethonas
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Phaethonas
-
-
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.....
50 minutes ago, blazemonger said:a/ Never said that
As a reminder!
On 9/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, blazemonger said:Oh.. wait, you are not a backer. So again, why are you here exactly?
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!
-
19 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
I have given several actual examples of how I know you are wrong, I have provided sources and numbers.. You have only provided what you assume to be the case as you have no factual data to back up anything you think is correct.
Mind you, you are free to think and assume what you like, we're mostly arguing semantics and generally just wasting time here for no reason .. That's all fine..
Still.. so far all I have from you is guesses, assumptions and opinions.
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.
-
1 minute ago, blazemonger said:
You do not argue, you voice your opinion.
There is no arguing with an opinion as it does not need to be based on fact(s) one believes to be true so arguing is pointless.
Do you play EVE? For how long? care to share IGN and/or alliance/corp?
Based on what you have said my guess is No, never have and none
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;
Quote5) 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?
Or should I assume that you omitting this part of my comment was an admission of some sort? To which, I am unsure!
-
7 minutes ago, GunDeva said:
This seems like a never ending run on topic ? I will be nice and just say lets just agree to disagree , but I have 100% confidence that when some one crosses that line NQ will step in and handle it!
Yes I have 100% confidence that NQ and the Dev's will take care of any Pay-2-Win situations that may accrue and they seem to already be working on it.
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 hour ago, blazemonger said:
Here we go again with the calculator thing.. Man, you really have no idea do you..
And now you come here making the claim the PLEX/DAC are set up for the purpose of preventing a black market (not sure here as your comments are ferociously vague)..
You obviously have no idea what you are saying and are just blabbing on, trying to justify whatever misaligned though process goes on in your head. There is _no need_ and certainly _no benefit_ to buy extreme amounts of PLEX for $$ as they do not give you what will drive success in the game, in fact it will mostly backfire and only feed those who do have the experience and understanding of the game to beat you every time.
You also seem to not have a clue about how much ISK in game alliances make on a daily basis. The big alliances in EVE do not need nor rely on PLEX except for maybe as a commodity to make even more profit. You seem to like numbers, you should look at the monthly economic reports CCP puts out on EVE..
At best your opinions (I would not even call them arguments as they have no base or relation to any sort of actual fact) rely on way to many assumptions to have any actual meaning or relevance to the subject of what is Pay2Win.
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;
QuoteBecause if we are totally honest here, if DACs are not implemented, the players having significant amounts of real money to spend and wanting quickly a lot of in-game currency will get it anyway from shady websites. Waging wars against goldfarming website is an eternal battle that can't be won because there will always be demand from some players. In that case, what's the best compromise? The one that has already been implemented in 3 MMORPGs among the most popular: EvE Online (with the PLEX), World of Warcraft (WoW Time Token) and Wildstar (with the CREDD). That way, those who will spend real life money to get in-game currency will help at least those who have a lot of spare time to play but not the necessary budget to pay a monthly fee to keep them playing. Not a perfect solution, but the best compromise we found so far, as this system has been proven quite efficient to keep goldfarmers away too.
(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?
-
16 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
You seem to be good with a calculator but seem to lack an understanding of what you are talking about.
If you are actually trying to make a point it must be that a 'whale' will buy 17B ISK /month in EVE based on your assumption that one spends $200 in PLEX.
While not easy, it is not that hard either to make that much ISK in game for a single person spending a reasonable amount of time in the game. Making 4-5B a month is fairly simple and can be done by a new player instantly with no need for any real world $$ investment. The argument that PLEX can be used in a P2W scenario is really trivial and frankly nonsense IMO. Paying your way into a ship by means of Skill injectors will not put you in a position to win fights and there is no 'winning the game' in EVE. All Whales do really is provide content for experienced players by losing their investment as they are clueless how to fly it. Alliances and big corporations honestly do not need to buy plex with $$, they will make more than they need from activities in game.
I am not a big EVE player by any means but make roughly 35B ISK a month without breaking a sweat from Exploration, Trading, PI and Industry alone. I do not do PVP unless you consider some of the market tactics PVP, which some will. I have not invested any $$ in EVE since maybe 3 months after starting EVE which is about 18 Months ago.
The way you talk about 'Whales' it seems you think there is a good number of players in EVE spending hundreds of $$ a month, this is simply not the case. I'd be interested to hear your sources if you claim different.
I know some of the EVE players who have financed wars (including WWB) and met them personally. They do not need to buy PLEX for $$, they make so much in game they are just looking for ways to sink the ISK they make and have fun with it.
You assume a lot, but obviously have no idea what you are saying nor do you have anything to back it up.
And you completely overlooked this
QuoteIt 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.
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.
-
On 9/20/2017 at 5:41 PM, EmperorSly said:
I'm currently looking for an org and playing as part of a democracy intrigues me, but almost all orgs seem to be empires, corporations, or oligarchies of some kind. Are there any democratic orgs of at least reasonable size?
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).
-
On 9/21/2017 at 3:39 AM, GunDeva said:Top definition : Pay to Win :I think people have different ideas of what true pay to win is !Personally I have no problems with the DAC's system and feel that most players will use it as was intended but that being said no matter what system is in place you will always have that small amount of people trying to beat the system and I feel NQ will handle it IMEDIATLY as they see fit !So please don't make suggestions that penalize the majority of players that use the system as intended and it is also strange we are acting like the system is broke even be for it comes out !Everyone has there opinion's and I don't really see this topic really making any ground so maybe we should wait until we get more data from released in-game DU play ?Just Saying.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Vellnn said:
Does the core count as an element? :T
And do the elements themselves have to be hit to take damage? Or does any part of the ship getting hit cause element damage.
I'm asking for a friend ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
-
2 hours ago, Hades said:
If you think it's pay to win, you don't have to play. Simple as that, it's the system we are getting and most of us are happy with it.
There are games I have chosen not to play due to the monetization theme. And that's completely my right, as it is yours.
[...]
You're not going to get some miraculous change to the system.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Lethys said:
Plex != skill injectors.
And numerous ppl argued and explained why dacs aren't p2w even for guilds.
And again: it's not p2w in eve. No one ever won a war because of plex. They won it because of in-game money, which couldn't ever be gained via plex (some sunk trillions of isk into battles, which would translate to several hundred thousand dollars). Such a huge amount of plex would not be bought. At all
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Lethys said:
Plex aren't p2w in eve and since dac work the same way - they're not p2w either.
As said multiple times now. And since it didn't go p2w in eve, your whole point of "I only said it has the potential" is just wrong tootoo
Try buying a better ship with dac and you'll see
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.
-
25 minutes ago, Haunty said:
I think this has been discussed to death now. It is part of the pay model, it is done. I've seen few (two) complaints about DAC, there are more complaints about being a subscription.
*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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 3:04 PM, blazemonger said:
Raising a question/concern is not the issue here.
And yet it is!
-
On 9/17/2017 at 0:43 PM, Kurock said:
Any system that allows payment of RL money for an in-game advantage has the potential to become p2w. Am I worried that this will happen in DU? No. Simply because NQ listens to its players and the players that have posted in this topic would be among the first to point out anything that may negatively effect the game. (Just be a little nicer about it guys
)
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
anin-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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 11:41 AM, NanoDot said:
Paying RL money for ingame advantage is a standard feature in most modern MMO's.
In reality, it has always been a feature in MMO's, it just used to be "illegal" previously (i.e. buying "gold" from third-party gold-sellers or buying rare weapons on EBay).
Things like PLEX and DAC are relatively benign, because it spreads the "advantage" around a bit, so it's easier to justify.
Player A buys DAC from player B with ingame money. Player A saves themselves some RL expenditure on the monthly sub, while player B gains a chunk of game cash to increase their purchasing power ingame. Player A is happy to give player B an advantage in game play, because player A gets to play for "free", which is more important to them than being financially powerful in the game world.
Let's face it, nobody would buy PLEX and DAC for RL money if there wasn't an advantage to be gained !
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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 11:18 AM, blazemonger said:
So, since in your opinion DU is P2W and as you state you want your game to not be P2W, how are you here when the mechanic of DACs has been established and know for a long time and you can really only have come into the game while knowing this, especially when DACs are part of the backers 'rewards'?
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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 9:24 AM, CaptainTwerkmotor said:
Ah, the casual forum cancer is still present I see.
@PhaethonasYou have spewn so much bullshit on this thread, I am genuinely surprised you haven't gone into septic shock already.
[...]
Σταμάτα να ντροπιάζεις την Ελληνική κοινότητα στα forums, εδραιώνεις το στερεότυπο του κλαρινογαμπρού Ελληνάρα που δεν έχει ιδέα από οικονομικά αλλά συνεχίζει να ωρύεται ότι έχει δίκαιο. Δεν έχεις δίκιο, είσαι μέρος του προβλήματος και το μόνο που κάνεις είναι να στιγματίζεις μια ολόκληρη κοινότητα.
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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 9:06 AM, Lethys said:
What
Also: you always come back to the narrative of "player buys quanta and wins the game" which isn't that easy and true, as I explained
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.
-
On 9/17/2017 at 0:17 AM, mrjacobean said:
I think you might misunderstand the nature of P2W. It's 'value' (effect on the game) can never equal zero. There will always be some presence that those who spend money will get an easier time than those who don't. Even if the DAC system is regulated perfectly (which it won't), there are things, like hiring other people for real money, upgrading your computer's hardware and connection, and using alt accounts, that have a higher P2W 'value' than the DAC system has. If you want to reduce the P2W 'value', then look elsewhere. The only way it would be zero is if the game replaced everything else (like 'The Gam3' by Cosimo Yap).
Main point: DAC is an acceptable distance away from P2W for the vast majority of players. Any effect it has can be countered by a reasonable good player.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, mrjacobean said:
However, it is not necessary to do so. The damage trying to improve the system will cause and the effort put into improving it outweighs the benefit of trying. From a business standpoint, its not a risk worth taking and from a game-play perspective, it won't improve anything noticeable. In fact, with the way the economy works (e.g. non-respawning resources), the chances of abuse are so low that there is no point trying to lower them more. Instead, try to look at other aspects of the game that could be improve in such a way as to be profitable. For example, what about the bounty system, or researching new technology...
P.S. You can't kill all bacteria without killing the thing it's on...
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.
-
13 hours ago, Lethys said:
So let's assume both are on the same planet.
The normal guild would just mine, produce, build - everything on their territory, protected by shields. Standard DU tactic.
The whales would need to buy dacs, possibly with an alt, sell them On the market (which may be far away!). They now have money. Great. They need resources.....
So they send a convoy to the market - buy resources, load them into the trucks, have to organize a defensive force, fly back to their territory and then start building.
I have nothing against regulations, in fact they need to regulate that market as dacs are the index for economy.
It's not that easy in DU to just condemn dac as p2w, because there are many many other factors you have to consider like: markets, sell orders of resources, economic growth of markets and Minerals, supply of minerals, location of markets, pirate threats in that area, intelligence of the player, demand of dac (yeah, you stillshould haven't answered that),...
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!
-
20 hours ago, mrjacobean said:
* 'paying to win' is the act of throwing money at something to do something. P2W mechanics are built for this exact purpose, but other mechanics can be used to achieve the same effect. DACs can be used to do this, but they are not a pay to win mechanic, since it wasn't built for the exact purpose of allowing those with money to win easier. It's purpose is to allow those either without money or without time to play the game, which after all is a plus since: players = content.
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
Pay-2-Win: Does it have a definition at all?
in General Discussions
Posted
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.