Jump to content

My Community Has Withdrawn Our Pledges


ChipPatton
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 :rolleyes:

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course ignore the equalizing factors that diminish the argument against it being P2W :rolleyes:

 

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...

 

... 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]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the team will figure out how not to give us a P2W game. Rich guys shouldn't be able to buy everything, and should have a limitation on how much they can buy per month and day. Anyway, the powerful orgs with real buddies playing (by powerful I mean big) should be priority and union should override the well off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[EDIT2: Yes, I'm aware that I'm extremely sassy, snarky, sarcastic and obnoxious -- it's just a part of my charm]

No its not.

You'll find people around here prefer others to be friendly and polite.

 

But whatever. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone who has no money complain about this "they can buy resources". It would be interesting if those who has not so much time start complain about "everyone must play limited amount of hours a week".

 

Why not?

 

P.S: Do not see any P2W model in DAC. Do not plan use them at all.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

First of all, I'm still playing devil's advocate for the sake of presenting both sides equally. I'm not running around touting end of the world prophecies, I don't think this is a big problem personally. Do you understand what the term devil's advocate means? I'm representing the OPs point of view after deconstructing his poorly put-together arguments, because I didn't think this thread was fairly representing both sides otherwise.

 

Secondly, you're completely missing the point. Which is that money buys influence. If you have to bring together a clan 10 times the size to beat mine, it's not a level playing field, because I'm using real life money as a force multiplier. As for how long I can hold it: as long as I have money to pay for it.

 

I've now expressed this more times than should reasonably be expected for a rational person to understand the point. If you still have your "side blinders" on, or whatever, I can't be bothered regurgitating this very simple notion again. You're not clearly defining your terms like I am, you're just roboticly gainsaying. What do you mean by pay-to-win? Do you disagree with my definition of spending money to gain resources and therefore a competitive advantage being pay-to-win? If you are, then I don't know what to tell you, because we're not speaking the same language in that case.

 

Nothing about pay-to-win the way I see it prevents a large enough group of people from creating an equivalent force -- the whole point is that you're creating the same kind of asymmetry with your wallet, rather than having to group together.

 

If you don't believe there is a "win" in the game, then congratulations, you've successfully resolved the second part of my message. That's my ultimate message here. If you design a game in such a way that there is no "winning" over others, you can't pay to win (if you think we're now in agreement, you should've read all my posts instead of just reacting to parts you think you disagree with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want you to like me, I want you to value my comments for their informational content and scientific rigor.

And I am the same way, but you can do the same while being friendly. :)

Thats all I was saying, welcome btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone who has no money complain about this "they can buy resources". It would be interesting if those who has not so much time start complain about "everyone must play limited amount of hours a week".

 

Why not?

 

P.S: Do not see any P2W model in DAC. Do not plan use them at all.

 

Thanks,

Archonious

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.

 

And I am the same way, but you can do the same while being friendly.  :)

Thats all I was saying, welcome btw.

Thanks... I guess? I think we should abstain from jerking eachother off in favor of some other time, though, I don't think this context is appropriate for it. 
 
I like to keep business and socializing activities separate for the most part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

XD those newcomers that just come and type a wall of text. FIRST OF, it's not that way you can be easily understood or heard at first, then, that's all, trynna be easy first, explain with less words, the clearer the better. You can highlight somehow the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

XD those newcomers that just come and type a wall of text. FIRST OF, it's not that way you can be easily understood or heard at first, then, that's all, trynna be easy first, explain with less words, the clearer the better. You can highlight somehow the text.

I refuse to cater to a dyslexic audience out of principle. 

 

If someone else wants to play the role of accessibility ambassador, they're more than welcome to translate, though...

 

I do my best to keep my comments concise and to the point, if the complexity of the topic escapes you, despite my best efforts to break it down, I can't help you, sorry.

 

 

For what it's worth, I have (due to people not understanding me at first) been forced to re-iterate the same message in various different forms, one of those must be sufficient, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Thanks... I guess? I think we should abstain from jerking eachother off in favor of some other time, though, I don't think this context is appropriate for it. 

 

I like to keep business and socializing activities separate for the most part.

I don't see any problems.

 

1. Player A sell his time to player B

2. Player B buy time of player A.

 

Time - this is time spent on resource grinding, crafting or any other.

 

Player B employ player A in other words. As many times, I would say, only one not abusabke and clear model is:

Player B can sell DAC as an owner. Player A can use it only.

 

So DAC is out of trade/economy model. It is barter - time to playtime (gold/resources/crafts to 30days sub).

That's it, simple!

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just did that though in my last post and you talked it down like it wasn't a valid reply. 

Didn't seem like it. You didn't seem to address my point at all, to be honest.

 

 

Again thats not even much to do with P2W anyways as that's always the case in games like this. 

Non sequitur.

 

 

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 addressed this in the last third of my response to your comment, in saying that if the way you envision the game (which none of us have seen yet, and which has, in fact, not been coded yet, probably not even concepted yet) is truly that there will be no way to "win" over your opponents, essentially meaning that competition/fighting is due to... some other motivation than winning, I guess? (roleplay? heck if I know...) 

... Then yeah, I guess you'd be correct ( I already said this if you read my comment, I guess you missed it? ) and you've successfully resolved the dilemma in design that I posited.

 

I don't completely know what you mean by the last part. It seems we still disagree about what comprises a competitive advantage. (Since you haven't read my comment regarding this yet, you haven't defined what you mean by pay to win... still waiting...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any problems.

 

1. Player A sell his time to player B

2. Player B buy time of player A.

 

Time - this is time spent on resource grinding, crafting or any other.

 

Player B employ player A in other words. As many times, I would say, only one not abusabke and clear model is:

Player B can sell DAC as an owner. Player A can use it only.

 

So DAC is out of trade/economy model. It is barter - time to playtime (gold/resources/crafts to 30days sub).

That's it, simple!

 

Thanks,

Archonious

 

A DAC has commodity value, it's essentially a form of currency, since you can presumably trade them as many times as you like... and even if you can't, you can just use the in-game currency as an in-between stage, doesn't matter.

 

What you're describing is how a market exchange would take place. This isn't in itself problematic.

 

What makes it problematic, is that:

A. In game resources translate to power/influence over others

B. You can buy in-game resources via DAC

-> Therefore, you can buy power/influence, therefore, by my definition of pay-to-win (again, please tell me if our definitions are incongruent somehow), would constitute a pay-to-win mechanism (with the assumption that the world is competitive, i.e. you "win" by hoarding shit and preventing others from accessing things, killing people or whatever -- and that more resources make that easier for you [perfectly valid assumptions from my point of view])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Bro, that's not how dictionary definitions work.

 

Is it a noun, verb, adjective? (verb, presumably?)

 

Who is doing what? How? Why? When? To whom?

 

Picking one aspect of it and giving an example of how that one word is defined doesn't equate to a definition of the larger word... Come on, work with me here -.-

 

[EDIT] As for the fallacies, the only one I'll admit to is a condescending tone ( tough break, it's just the flavor of today, I might be nicer tomorrow )

As for the other fallacies, you'll have to point out the exact positions in which these occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not coded yet and no one seen it..... I see what you did there

I'm not sure what you're implying. If you read the kickstarter page, watch their AMAs and interviews, read what has been relayed on the forums and so on, I think you'll find that many aspects of the game are not actually in their "tech demo" stage yet. They're very open about this and I didn't think there was any ambiguity. One of these things includes the economy and combat system and other aspects of the game that are crucial mechanics when determining whether you'd consider a given mechanism "p2w" or not within the larger context of the game.

 

Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering KS is gonna be a sucess, I think they've worked out what to implement in the game, though they won't code a lot as they're not sure of anything. There will still be questions for the community regarding what direction to take on certain matters, or at least there will inform us right after the KS is a sucess if it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A DAC has commodity value, it's essentially a form of currency, since you can presumably trade them as many times as you like... and even if you can't, you can just use the in-game currency as an in-between stage, doesn't matter.

 

What you're describing is how a market exchange would take place. This isn't in itself problematic.

 

What makes it problematic, is that:

A. In game resources translate to power/influence over others

B. You can buy in-game resources via DAC

-> Therefore, you can buy power/influence, therefore, by my definition of pay-to-win (again, please tell me if our definitions are incongruent somehow), would constitute a pay-to-win mechanism (with the assumption that the world is competitive, i.e. you "win" by hoarding shit and preventing others from accessing things, killing people or whatever -- and that more resources make that easier for you [perfectly valid assumptions from my point of view])

A. Have no idea what you mean at all. Words on water.

B. You don't buy resources, you buy players time (all these resources do not come from nowhere).

 

As I said, don't like this model, want fair model? Let's make 2-3 hour game allowed every day. For everyone.

 

If somebody want to work (grind resources, build ship or something else) for getting 30days sub, go on. If NQ would sell resources, then it would be P2W.

Really, need to learn what real P2W mean, not what stupid community think last years (to excuse themselves).

 

Archonious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. Have no idea what you mean at all. Words on water.

B. You don't buy resources, you buy players time (all these resources do not come from nowhere).

 

As I said, don't like this model, want fair model? Let's make 2-3 hour game allowed every day. For everyone.

 

If somebody want to work (grind resources, build ship or something else) for getting 30days sub, go on. If NQ would sell resources, then it would be P2W.

Really, need to learn what real P2W mean, not what stupid community think last years (to excuse themselves).

 

Archonious

Definetely. I wanna grind the game to pay monthly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...