Jump to content
ChipPatton

My Community Has Withdrawn Our Pledges

Recommended Posts

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

You openly admit you don't even understand the words that make up my line of reasoning... and then proceed to rebuke me anyway?

 

As I explained, it doesn't matter where the resources come from, we're not examining the economy as a whole.

 

We're looking at whether a player can gain a differential advantage over another player with money.

 

So if player A buys ship components from players B C D and E each the first to research their respective element crafting skills to their respective levels, with DACs, his ship will be more powerful than player X's, who either uses all his resources to build the best he can on his own, or trades for inferior versions of the same components player A used. They will be inferior because of how supply and demand will determine the prices of the cutting-edge tech (a player's time should in theory be worth the same regardless of how he spends it, and player A effectively buys multiple peoples' time -- it's a bit complicated but if you think about it you should see what I mean).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss something mate :) but you clearly are eloquent and intelligent enough to figure that out.

 

I like you, you are funny

Ambiguity and veiled sarcasm does not a witty quip make, but for the purposes of ending this seemingly fruitless exchange, I shall merely nod and smile like we understand one another...

 

*nods and forces an eerie smile*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to make an addendum and clarification to anyone who's been following along like a true masochist:

 

If I don't pay for additional DACs on top of maintaining my playtime, I'll get my ass kicked in an isolated 1v1 against a player who does, all other things being equal -- I don't think there should be ambiguity about this.

 

That said, it has been noted that I can join big unions, alliances, militaries, whatever protective organizations, to lessen the effect. This is true... HOWEVER, it's not that the individual mechanism mentioned above is less pay-to-win, it just diffuses the effect, such that the game as a WHOLE is less pay-to-win. I hope you can see the distinction.

 

So if we can find enough of these mechanisms (and I still think, as I have since the beginning, that we will) to have in the game, it is likely we'll end up with a game that will, on the whole, not be very heavily pay-to-win.

 

I just thought I should clarify this explicitly, in case some of you didn't bother reading every single comment I've made in this very drawn out thread.

 

 

[EDIT: Addendum addendum:] It is also worth noting, that this game isn't particularly skill-based, but rather the outcome of a battle will be mostly determined by seniorship (at least this is my speculation). In that sense, there is built-in asymmetry even without paying to gain an advantage. Given that, the notion of paying to win is somewhat less applicable to this type of game on the whole, compared to something like counter-strike or DotA or whatever, since it further dillutes the influence bought power will have in the already existing asymmetry.

 

Of course, you might argue (and I'd agree) that this in and of itself poses another issue, if you want to have a competitive game (which I don't, I like care-bear, pussyfooting, hippy-ass cooperation gameplay for Minecraft-like games such as this one -- I only compete in FPS where it makes sense). Which is another reason why I emphasized the importance of making the game more about cooperation than competition earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You openly admit you don't even understand the words that make up my line of reasoning... and then proceed to rebuke me anyway?

 

As I explained, it doesn't matter where the resources come from, we're not examining the economy as a whole.

 

We're looking at whether a player can gain a differential advantage over another player with money.

 

So if player A buys ship components from players B C D and E each the first to research their respective element crafting skills to their respective levels, with DACs, his ship will be more powerful than player X's, who either uses all his resources to build the best he can on his own, or trades for inferior versions of the same components player A used. They will be inferior because of how supply and demand will determine the prices of the cutting-edge tech (a player's time should in theory be worth the same regardless of how he spends it, and player A effectively buys multiple peoples' time -- it's a bit complicated but if you think about it you should see what I mean).

No, source of resources is main factor. Where it came from is the definition factor.

You as one of those poor guys starting saying about advantage, which is absolutely formal. Let's ban all organisations and communication, because players sell their time to achieve somdbodies project, which is absolutely equal.

Then you start mix basic economy with DAC trade.

 

All I see, you don't even want understand basic and find this basic in other features. Want to ban DAC? Everything need to be banned - organisations, playtime, trade, grinding other players, multi-accounting, even basic chat. BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS SUPPORT P2W (with DAC or without).

 

If do not understand that, it same as do not understand anything.

 

P.S: about example, I would say it is stuoid at all.. player buy ready components, he doesn't spend time... lol, wut? What PlayerA will use as payment? Money! Where did he get it? Grinded/Traded/Stole (spent his time)! Result: Player A grinded money to buy components to create ship and sell it for DAC (time for timeplay).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha well you read, but don't understand - that's fruitless. Happens to the best, I forgive you. Don't worry.

 

You could add tl;drs to your walls, would help.

 

Oh and your first point on p2w will never happen in DU, but you know that, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, look man... You're way off basis, you're misunderstanding almost everything I'm saying, you're putting words into my mouth, and overall missing the point completely.

 

So let's just go through this point by point, shall we?

 

No, source of resources is main factor. Where it came from is the definition factor.

Alright. Now it's my turn to say that I have no idea what the above utterances mean. Lost in translation, sorry... Moving on.

 

 

You as one of those poor guys starting saying about advantage, which is absolutely formal. Let's ban all organisations and communication, because players sell their time to achieve somdbodies project, which is absolutely equal.

Again, first sentence mostly lost in translation... And I've said nothing about banning organizations or communication...? Moving on...?

 

 

Then you start mix basic economy with DAC trade.

DAC trade is an intrinsic, inseparable part of the overall economy, since DACs can be traded for in-game currency. This is a matter of fact, and in public record.

 

 

All I see, you don't even want understand basic and find this basic in other features. Want to ban DAC? Everything need to be banned - organisations, playtime, trade, grinding other players, multi-accounting, even basic chat. BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS SUPPORT P2W (with DAC or without).

I don't want to ban DAC. In fact, I've explicitly stated exactly the contrary.

 

 

P.S: about example, I would say it is stuoid at all.. player buy ready components, he doesn't spend time... lol, wut? What PlayerA will use as payment? Money! Where did he get it? Grinded/Traded/Stole (spent his time)! Result: Player A grinded money to buy components to create ship and sell it for DAC (time for timeplay).

No... As stated, he would get the money by selling the DACs he bought with real money, on in-game markets, for in-game currency. The whole point of this is that you can beat out players because you can effectively buy your way to the cutting edge, where no single player competing alone against him can do the same without also paying for DAC.

 

 

 

PLEASE read the rest of my posts where I outline what I think on the big picture level.

In summary:

* I think DACs are the best way to go

* We need to promote cooperative mechanics rather than competition to prevent things feeling like pay-to-win

* Even if we fail at the above goal, the effect of this real, but small pay-to-win element may be negligible in practice, time will tell -- but it's good to keep an eye on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha well you read, but don't understand - that's fruitless. Happens to the best, I forgive you. Don't worry.

 

You could add tl;drs to your walls, would help.

 

Oh and your first point on p2w will never happen in DU, but you know that, right?

I'll ignore any further posts by you unless you make them more specific, I don't have time to wade through all the ambiguity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* We need to promote cooperative mechanics rather than competition to prevent things feeling like pay-to-win

 

That's complete bullshit because there's no p2w like you described in some wall beforehand. Competition is a motor for the economy and gameplay.

 

You can also use p2w for your carebear city in some safezone. No difference there.

 

See, you don't need so much words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* We need to promote cooperative mechanics rather than competition to prevent things feeling like pay-to-win

 

That's complete bullshit because there's no p2w like you described in some wall beforehand. Competition is a motor for the economy and gameplay.

 

You can also use p2w for your carebear city in some safezone. No difference there.

 

See, you don't need so much words

Your stubborn rejection of "words", collectively, has lead you to completely misunderstand my position.

 

If you really can't be arsed to even try to understand the actual positions of the people you're conversing with, instead choosing to attack some strawman version of their views, I honestly don't know what the fuck you're even doing on this thread. O.o   (or on any forum in general)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I just copy people I meet there, who write walls over a topic discussed already in length, adding nothing new and give completely false statements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has everyone heard their own voice enough yet? 

 

this stopped being a debate and just people repeating the same shit over and over 6 pages ago.

Yeah, it's kind of snowballing out of control. If you want to know why I'm doing it, it's because people typically only read the last page or two of posts on long threads, so as new people keep posting misrepresentations of my views on the top, I have to keep reposting my views, usually expressed in slightly different words, in hopes of getting through to the person in question.

 

Frankly, I'm kind of growing tired of this myself, and I have excellent stamina when it comes to this sort of thing... so that should be saying something

 

Maybe I'll make a new thread with a summary of my analysis of the situation either here or on the ideas subforum and leave it at that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing to say more here... I think this guy just lost in his opinions))))

 

Honestly, it like debate with wall =)

Says the guy who can't read or write fluent English and blames it on his counterparts... tsk

 

And fails to understand anything correctly as a result.

 

At least this wall doesn't scramble the message before echoing it back, like you...

 

xaxaxa)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Says the guy who can't read or write fluent English and blames it on his counterparts... tsk

 

And fails to understand anything correctly as a result.

 

At least this wall doesn't scramble the message before echoing it back, like you...

 

xaxaxa)))

 

 

Then why don't you continue the discussion with him in Russian? Or is his english probably better than your russian....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why don't you continue the discussion with him in Russian? Or is his english probably better than your russian....

English isn't my first language either, you presumptuous ass xD

 

It does happen to be the lingua franca on the internet, as well as on this messaging board, so you can either:

A. Learn it like all the rest of us

B. Suffer and complain, to no avail

C. (BONUS!) Pretend like you understand the language, and then get upset when your inability to comprehend it leads inevitably to misunderstandings...

 

Any more misguided, snarky remarks, or are you done being a hypocrite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like trashtalking, narcissistic ass....people. do you wanna be my friend?

 

Btw. He never said english wasn't your first language... reading != understanding. But we had that already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly!  I'm sure with all of these pages this point has been made, including my earlier post but Patton is making his own definition which doesn't apply to this game. The flaw in the arguement isn't the arguement itself but the definition it is based on. 

 

It is like saying a rainbow is only blue because I define it by saying it ends where the constant ends (color change).  Ok ... maybe not the best analogy but there is no use in arguing with Patton b/c his definition is this issue .... he is looking at a cell and not the body as a whole.  There are two different perspectives BUT!!! each is looking at two different things; the arguments aren't about the same thing.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, going to be mad at players who don't have english as their mother language? That's low bro

Then why don't you continue the discussion with him in Russian? Or is his english probably better than your russian....

Don't think it is the reason) It is attempt to offend or self-excuse)

 

Don't know what language I need to know to understand "I like, but it is shity, so I don't like it, because I like it". If somebody understand him, I would be happy to hearn normal explained opinion =)

 

Thanks,

Archonious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...