On Premium Ships and "Pay to Win"

[Joe]

As far as I can tell from the posts devs and those in the know have made premium ships will have unlimited durability which I completely agree with. Ships made by players might be superior in certain ways and have uncommon qualities but they will have limited durability (5 keeps popping up).

As to EVE...from what I've read this won't be EVE in the age of sail, I'm thankful for that. This game needs to take its own path, I think the devs learned from Any number of games what works, what doesn't and maybe have some new ideas. POTBS is to....ugh...ummm...well it just started sucking butt in so many ways after Blackbeard closed that I can't explain it it less than an article as thick as "War and Peace". EVE is for freaks, sorry freaks but that's what you are. Some people pay to be whipped, beaten and mistreated, you are the mmo equivalent of those pervs.

I expect the average player for NA to be older, have a love for history, have a thicker wallet and will want their time spent in game to feel worth while and fun because they don't have unlimited hours to play they will have Jobs, family's, commitments.

From what I've gathered the devs have a really good lock on who will pay to play their game. Hence the enforcement of chivalry that will be built into the game thus denying the "leet rekt u bro" crowd a chance to bother the paying customers much.

I'm sure the game will have room for most everyone to find something they love but from what I know this will not be EVE nor any other game but I have a feeling that it will have a structure similar to WOT and Wardunder when it comes to cash creation. Premium ships, better equipment, better crews, flags, paint schemes etc. will be sold for RL cash. Thinking back to what I've read the largest ship you can buy as a premium might be a 3rd rate. The 2nd and 1st will most likely require both a special mission at a certain level of accomplishment (and maybe a special drop) and something purchased from the cash shop.

I think most of us will really love what Game Labs creates, and I hope they stay true to their vision and ignore the EVE nonsense.

[smooshkin]

I'm on board with the folks saying keep premium to cosmetic or average-and-not-OP items/ships or what have you. But I am also on board with what Joe has said.

 

Personally, history is one of my most coveted hobbies. So is gaming. And I'd be MORE than happy to plug part of my income into sustaining the work Game Labs has done because it in turn sustains the enjoyment of my hobby and I say, with confidence, I would be among those paying for premium nonsense if only for the knowledge I'm helping support the game's continued development. I was to reward the fellows who made such a wonderful piece a reality! <3

 

I like extra goodies. In the end I believe whatever they do will be great.

[Grim DeGrim]

... you bought 50 "mechs" for MWO  ... drunken seamonkey...

 

It is terrible   Worst part, I purchased the resistance pack, and then quite playing after December...Faction Warfare was so bad....

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I really don't like Eve's financial model that much.  Subscription-based, allows the possibility of players to "buy" their wins without putting the time into the game as much (skill points notwitstanding).

 

I like the DotA 2 model.  Ability to buy "skins", a marketplace to buy them as well, an active steam workshop.  If ships are developed by parties outside of the Devs, one is going beyond mere cosmetics, and so there will have to be some kind of review to make sure no Death Stars are brought into the game.

 

The nice thing about the age of sail is that there are no "super weapons" that annihilate everyone around them.  I'm not referring to long guns, but rather guided missiles ;-D

 

But there are ships that handled well, some that were severely crippled in a light breeze (Santisima Trinidad, e.g.), some that were poor sailers in a chop.  If possible, it would be nice to devise a way to have ships and skins be approved by the dev, in a strict fashion to prevent any ships that presented an unfair advantage.  I have no problem with paying for micro transactions, so long as they don't become unfairly expensive.  A great example of pricey add ons is with the various train simulators on Steam.  $15-20 for an additional train to putz around in seems pretty silly.

 

On top of that, I'd like to see a model that encouraged the taking of prizes - take a unique ship/addon, and it's still yours to keep.  Sinking doesn't count.

I think we will just disagree on this as to my mind eve has solved this in the best way. Also, in the time period you could buy rank in the navy (royal). I think game labs need to be brave about how they deal with this issue though. Time constrained gamers need to be catered for. Getting stuck in a cutter for weeks because you have only a few hours a week of free time fills me with dread.

[tarkin1980]

What most people seem to fail to realize is that money is time and time is money. Some people are able to put massive amounts of time into a game, and are held in great esteem as honorable players. But if you should decide to put money into the game, which you've put time into making, you're suddenly a cheat. Most people just don't have the choice. If you have a full time job, you have a full time job. You can't choose to convert part of your salary into free time at will. Similarily, an unemployed person can not convert their abundance of spare time into money. No one is going to accuse the person with a lot of time on their hands of cheating, though. You have to decide if you want to keep certain people out of the game or not, and whether it is going to be time or money that is going to be the deciding factor. This should be obvious to all.

That being said, one also has to consider what makes a better game. My personal opinion is that the F2P model has utterly crippled the MMO market quality-wise. I think most developers are aware of this but they simply have no choice. Customers just aren't willing to pay a monthly subscription these days. Without micro transactions, this game just isn't going to happen.

 

This game, like WoT but to a lesser degree, is pretty skill based. People who start WoT by purchasing a tier 8 premium tank, and bypass the learning stages of the game, are effectively paying to lose since they will just be completely roflstomped by people who actually know how to play. That Löwe player with 200 games just isn't going to be able to do anything useful whatsoever. I suspect the same will be true in Naval Action.

[Kontreadmiral]

I'm more interested in what premium ships will be.

 

Will they be paper ships that never left the drawing board, such as the HMS Duke of Kent?

Edited April 12, 2015 by Kontreadmiral

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I'm more interested in what premium ships will be.

Will they be paper ships that never left the drawing board, such as the HMS Duke of Kent?

Admin said only real (built) ships or very generic "type" will be in game. Duke of Kent was cited as not being in game. Edited April 12, 2015 by Sir Darric Vandhelm

[Crimguy]

I think we will just disagree on this as to my mind eve has solved this in the best way. Also, in the time period you could buy rank in the navy (royal). I think game labs need to be brave about how they deal with this issue though. Time constrained gamers need to be catered for. Getting stuck in a cutter for weeks because you have only a few hours a week of free time fills me with dread.

 

I think what bothers me about Eve in that regard is that I put a ton of time into null space, then wh space, learning the game's mechanics, getting into monster fleet battles, dying a lot, and truly feeling the loss of a ship financially.  I think the best part about it was the fact that losing my ship had real consequences, and that was great.  As time wore on, and I got better at making money in the game subcap prices had less and less effect on my mentality.  Then there were the guys in the big corps that were churning out tons of isk with moon goo and whatnot - something no casual player could ever compete with unless they were plexing their account like crazy.  Good for CCP, but not for the casual player that you speak of.

 

To put it in eve terms, I worry about some players having a stable of tengus while I'm struggling with a stabber, or worse, cormorant or heron, with no ability to get there unless i pony up a lot of cash.  Please don't misunderstand my thoughts about Eve - I think it works for the type of game it is, but that doesn't mean I want it applied to other games.

 

Fortunately, the mechanics of the age of sail should obviate this to a great deal.  Your 6th rate is going to lose to a 1st rate 100% of the time, but a skilled captain should have an advantage over a poor one if the ships are a bit closer - 32 guns vs. 24 or 40, depending on size of guns, etc.

 

Additionally, it's my hope that "skilling up" , or leveling, won't be the time sink it is in Eve. I'm hoping the time to get into a 1st rate is significantly less, with opportunities to jump in experience through winning battles, not just waiting it out.  Like you I want the newer player to have the ability to have more of an impact, even if they don't put 40 hours/week into that.  Not all of us live in a dorm room ;-D  But is paying for something you should learn or develop in game the answer?  Dunno.

 

I'm still reading on what the devs have in mind in this game.  I didn't know it existed a week ago, and am only now beginning to realize that it is being structured more like a traditional mmo than I thought.  I do look forward to watching it develop, and perhaps take part in how it shapes up.

[Oliver H. Perry]

I think what bothers me about Eve in that regard is that I put a ton of time into null space, then wh space, learning the game's mechanics, getting into monster fleet battles, dying a lot, and truly feeling the loss of a ship financially.  I think the best part about it was the fact that losing my ship had real consequences, and that was great.  As time wore on, and I got better at making money in the game subcap prices had less and less effect on my mentality.  Then there were the guys in the big corps that were churning out tons of isk with moon goo and whatnot - something no casual player could ever compete with unless they were plexing their account like crazy.  Good for CCP, but not for the casual player that you speak of.

 

To put it in eve terms, I worry about some players having a stable of tengus while I'm struggling with a stabber, or worse, cormorant or heron, with no ability to get there unless i pony up a lot of cash.  Please don't misunderstand my thoughts about Eve - I think it works for the type of game it is, but that doesn't mean I want it applied to other games.

 

Fortunately, the mechanics of the age of sail should obviate this to a great deal.  Your 6th rate is going to lose to a 1st rate 100% of the time, but a skilled captain should have an advantage over a poor one if the ships are a bit closer - 32 guns vs. 24 or 40, depending on size of guns, etc.

 

Additionally, it's my hope that "skilling up" , or leveling, won't be the time sink it is in Eve. I'm hoping the time to get into a 1st rate is significantly less, with opportunities to jump in experience through winning battles, not just waiting it out.  Like you I want the newer player to have the ability to have more of an impact, even if they don't put 40 hours/week into that.  Not all of us live in a dorm room ;-D  But is paying for something you should learn or develop in game the answer?  Dunno.

 

I'm still reading on what the devs have in mind in this game.  I didn't know it existed a week ago, and am only now beginning to realize that it is being structured more like a traditional mmo than I thought.  I do look forward to watching it develop, and perhaps take part in how it shapes up.

 

Would you say the same about Eve - that you hope you can just hop into a Titan and go cruising around DDing everything?

 

If the general composition of the fleet at large is brigs to medium frigates, with only the most coordinated and dedicated people able to obtain/afford higher rate ships (3rd rate and up), I think you'll be far happier.  You'll have a situation where you don't have to be in a Bellona to survive - a well sailed Brig can compete.  If you encourage large ship bloat, you'll severely hamper newcomers, and end up requiring players that want to have fun to either spend a lot of money on the game, or grind incessently to "keep up".

 

There will most certainly be a lot of structure, but I think that is important - not only because I want to see fleet compositions mirror those of the real world for the period, but also because by limiting those fleet compositions to something approaching history, you make the smaller ships incredibly useful and attractive.  Also different from Eve is that you can strike (surrender) immediately to a superior force.  You'll lose a durability, but you'll not have the huge repair costs that you do when you lose a single ship in Eve - even with insurance.  There are no kill 'em, pod 'em, and drink their tears moments here - you haul down your colors, and you're good to go.

 

To return to the Eve analogy, I think of Trincomalee or maybe Constitution as the Battleship of Eve.  Fairly expensive to obtain, repair, and lose, but obtainable with a good amount of hard work and some skill.  I see Bellona, Victory, etc. as the capitals and supercapitals.  Requiring a high degree of teamwork to operate and obtain.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Thomas Hardy

[Grim DeGrim]

ohh..as a person who played mechcommander planetary campaigns and mw3/4 nbt4 mpbt3025, etc

I was very thankful that I got onto the Island and had a nice cabin built before the population influx

that being said...500$ into star citizen and thats before the new comp to run it and the hotas...

uggh the price you pay for quality gaming

 

I had to make a choice yesterday...buy into Star Citizen, or purchase new video card...

 

I bought the video card, but the Star Citizen videos still tease me

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

I think what bothers me about Eve in that regard is that I put a ton of time into null space, then wh space, learning the game's mechanics, getting into monster fleet battles, dying a lot, and truly feeling the loss of a ship financially.  I think the best part about it was the fact that losing my ship had real consequences, and that was great.  As time wore on, and I got better at making money in the game subcap prices had less and less effect on my mentality.  Then there were the guys in the big corps that were churning out tons of isk with moon goo and whatnot - something no casual player could ever compete with unless they were plexing their account like crazy.  Good for CCP, but not for the casual player that you speak of.

 

To put it in eve terms, I worry about some players having a stable of tengus while I'm struggling with a stabber, or worse, cormorant or heron, with no ability to get there unless i pony up a lot of cash.  Please don't misunderstand my thoughts about Eve - I think it works for the type of game it is, but that doesn't mean I want it applied to other games.

 

Fortunately, the mechanics of the age of sail should obviate this to a great deal.  Your 6th rate is going to lose to a 1st rate 100% of the time, but a skilled captain should have an advantage over a poor one if the ships are a bit closer - 32 guns vs. 24 or 40, depending on size of guns, etc.

 

Additionally, it's my hope that "skilling up" , or leveling, won't be the time sink it is in Eve. I'm hoping the time to get into a 1st rate is significantly less, with opportunities to jump in experience through winning battles, not just waiting it out.  Like you I want the newer player to have the ability to have more of an impact, even if they don't put 40 hours/week into that.  Not all of us live in a dorm room ;-D  But is paying for something you should learn or develop in game the answer?  Dunno.

 

I'm still reading on what the devs have in mind in this game.  I didn't know it existed a week ago, and am only now beginning to realize that it is being structured more like a traditional mmo than I thought.  I do look forward to watching it develop, and perhaps take part in how it shapes up.

I think you misunderstood my original post. I meant I liked the way EvE has implemented the cash side, it is in short brilliant and could be used here. The perpetual grind in EvE is why I don't play anymore.

I will learn and develop, but I dont want to take a week replacing a line ship that got ganked because I made a silly mistake. Or take six months to get there in the first place.

This game it more about player skill than EvEs button mashing. The best players in a sixth rate 'could' threaten a poor player in a SOL. It would take a bit of time though.

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

Would you say the same about Eve - that you hope you can just hop into a Titan and go cruising around DDing everything?

If the general composition of the fleet at large is brigs to medium frigates, with only the most coordinated and dedicated people able to obtain/afford higher rate ships (3rd rate and up), I think you'll be far happier. You'll have a situation where you don't have to be in a Bellona to survive - a well sailed Brig can compete. If you encourage large ship bloat, you'll severely hamper newcomers, and end up requiring players that want to have fun to either spend a lot of money on the game, or grind incessently to "keep up".

There will most certainly be a lot of structure, but I think that is important - not only because I want to see fleet compositions mirror those of the real world for the period, but also because by limiting those fleet compositions to something approaching history, you make the smaller ships incredibly useful and attractive. Also different from Eve is that you can strike (surrender) immediately to a superior force. You'll lose a durability, but you'll not have the huge repair costs that you do when you lose a single ship in Eve - even with insurance. There are no kill 'em, pod 'em, and drink their tears moments here - you haul down your colors, and you're good to go.

To return to the Eve analogy, I think of Trincomalee or maybe Constitution as the Battleship of Eve. Fairly expensive to obtain, repair, and lose, but obtainable with a good amount of hard work and some skill. I see Bellona, Victory, etc. as the capitals and supercapitals. Requiring a high degree of teamwork to operate and obtain.

SOLs and frigates had roughly the same numbers in the RN, though when at peace SOLs were often put in ordinary. Sloops of war were more common. I don't think a SOL should be harder to obtain, but I do see a SOL as requiring a supporting fleet to use effectively. A bit like in game now, if your frigates forget to protect you stern, you basically a gonner.

Edit: the numbers for the top five powers (naval) I have for 1790 are:

Great Britian: 195 SOL, 210 frigates, 256 sloops

France: 81 SOL, 69 Frigates, 141 Sloops

Spain: 72 SOL, 41 Frigates, 109 Sloops

Russia: 67 SOL, 36 Frigates, 700 Sloops

Holland: 44 SOL, 43 Frigates, 100 Sloops

Edited April 12, 2015 by Sir Darric Vandhelm

[Austrum]

I think what bothers me about Eve in that regard is that I put a ton of time into null space, then wh space, learning the game's mechanics, getting into monster fleet battles, dying a lot, and truly feeling the loss of a ship financially.  I think the best part about it was the fact that losing my ship had real consequences, and that was great.  As time wore on, and I got better at making money in the game subcap prices had less and less effect on my mentality.  Then there were the guys in the big corps that were churning out tons of isk with moon goo and whatnot - something no casual player could ever compete with unless they were plexing their account like crazy.  Good for CCP, but not for the casual player that you speak of.

 

To put it in eve terms, I worry about some players having a stable of tengus while I'm struggling with a stabber, or worse, cormorant or heron, with no ability to get there unless i pony up a lot of cash.  Please don't misunderstand my thoughts about Eve - I think it works for the type of game it is, but that doesn't mean I want it applied to other games.

 

Fortunately, the mechanics of the age of sail should obviate this to a great deal.  Your 6th rate is going to lose to a 1st rate 100% of the time, but a skilled captain should have an advantage over a poor one if the ships are a bit closer - 32 guns vs. 24 or 40, depending on size of guns, etc.

 

Additionally, it's my hope that "skilling up" , or leveling, won't be the time sink it is in Eve. I'm hoping the time to get into a 1st rate is significantly less, with opportunities to jump in experience through winning battles, not just waiting it out.  Like you I want the newer player to have the ability to have more of an impact, even if they don't put 40 hours/week into that.  Not all of us live in a dorm room ;-D  But is paying for something you should learn or develop in game the answer?  Dunno.

 

I'm still reading on what the devs have in mind in this game.  I didn't know it existed a week ago, and am only now beginning to realize that it is being structured more like a traditional mmo than I thought.  I do look forward to watching it develop, and perhaps take part in how it shapes up.

 

Players have a choice in EVE in fact that entire game is about choice.  You can choose to play up in safe Hi Sec space and just PvE all day along, you can solo or you can group, you can join a small corp and PVE or hell go in and PvP to your heart content in small like cheap frigates. You can join a large corp and have access to all their resources or you can start your own corp and grow it to epic proportions.  Basically you get to chose what you want to do and no one and nothing is there to stop you, that is the true Genius of a sandbox MMO.  

 

As far as this game, I see it the same way.  You make a choice how you want to play.  I mean it shouldn't be to hard to put together a small fleet of small Frigates or Corvettes and go pirate hunting or plundering your enemies merchant shipping.  Then again perhaps you want to create a large shipping association and found your own port somewhere on the Florida Coast.  Maybe you just want to concentrate on trading and manufacturing.  Then again maybe you just want to be part of a large shipping association and piggyback off them to gain a 1st rate and go wreck face in port battles.  Pretty much the sky is the limit and just like EVE, only you, yourself impose limitations on yourself. 

[Sir Cloudsley-Shovell]

Great Britian: 195 SOL, 210 frigates, 256 sloops

 

That seems a lot.I have a total of 452 Vessels and that includes Hulks. 

[Sir Darric Vandhelm]

That seems a lot.I have a total of 452 Vessels and that includes Hulks. 

 

My paper source isn't really explicit on this.  However it seems a logical number. 

 

Your number seems a very low number to me.

 

Not including hulks, harbour, hospital or prison ships I have a count in service during 1800 of 7 first rates and 15 second rates.  Approximately 100 third rates, 25 fourth rates and 40 Captures of all classes (used Wikipedia for this list).

[BungeeLemming]

Im not sure how much relevance the royal navie's historical shipcount give to this thread.

The OP is all about the prem ships and the concern weather or not they are gamebreaking or not.

 

So can we all get back to the subject and open a new thread in the historical subforum for such stuff you are researching right now?

I can move Posts to such a thread if you open it. But I am afraid that you are going offtopic a lot.

[Joe]

There can't be a limit on player owned rates for the obvious reason that at some point the newer players or those who can't spend 10 hours a day gaming won't be able to enjoy the same ships that others have. The ownership of rated ships undoubtedly will take time (leveling, missions etc) and drops and most likely a purchase from the cash shop. Those should be the only restrictions however as capping ownership would be a disincentive to many players and cause a loss of player numbers and income brought in for Game Labs.

Capping the number of rates in game would also interfere with those who have taken the task of shipwrights as their means of making money and carrying out what they enjoy in the game. And indeed capping rates would alter the entire economy of the game which would be a disincentive to Econ and construction players.

It would be unwise to cause at least 3 seperate groups of players a reason to not play. Furthermore if Rates are limited or impossible to have then you will cause those who do own them to hoard them and seldom bring them out. This would stunt large battles and hinder the intensity of the large battles which instead would be nothing more than sloop wars and look nothing like what I do believe Game Labs is trying to achieve.

The port battles in POTBS right before the game went downhill were amazing, I'm imagining something similar but with far more port battles and little of the pirate silliness. Historical admirers of the period will be wanting many more Trafalgars than ever happened but that's what they will want, and this will mean a constant flow of rated ships will be needed to make up for the losses.

The fewer walls Game Labs puts up, the less they hinder players from achieving their ultimate goals be it Admiral on board a 1st rate or a rich Dutch trader, or a Frigate Captian in search of ships to capture and sell back the more players will love the game, the more alive its ecosystem will be and the more money they will make.

I intend on buying every ship they will offer simply because I love options, I love collecting and enjoying my in game toys. Knowing how many players purchased premium aircraft in WT and premium tanks in WOT I have no doubt that I'm not the only one who will be ready to lay down RL cash to enjoy special ships. I don't think Game Labs will do anything silly enough to dissuade people from playing their game and giving them their RL cash.

Edited April 14, 2015 by Joe

[Sir Cloudsley-Shovell]

My paper source isn't really explicit on this.  However it seems a logical number. 

 

Your number seems a very low number to me.

 

Not including hulks, harbour, hospital or prison ships I have a count in service during 1800 of 7 first rates and 15 second rates.  Approximately 100 third rates, 25 fourth rates and 40 Captures of all classes (used Wikipedia for this list).

This is an abscract from Official Vessel returns for the RN in 1800.

 

http://www.pbenyon.plus.com/Naval_History/Vol_III/Abstract_No_8.html

[Schuetzengel]

It would be unwise to cause at least 3 seperate groups of players a reason to not play. Furthermore if Rates are limited or impossible to have then you will cause those who do own them to hoard them and seldom bring them out. This would stunt large battles and hinder the intensity of the large battles which instead would be nothing more than sloop wars and look nothing like what I do believe Game Labs is trying to achieve.

 

Can you please explain how portbattles in lower rated ships are stunted and how those ships are hindering the intensity? (of course battles in lynxes and cutters would be boring, but in frigates and 4th rates like in potbs?)

also how is giving the casual player who only owns a frigate a chance to be an valuable asset (SOL or GTFO) in a battle is a bad thing?  

 

 

...most likely a purchase from the cash shop. ...giving them their RL cash.

 

so pay2win?

 

 

maybe restriction in numbers is the wrong approach, but it is still imperative to make 1st rates (and maybe even SOLs in general) as rare as possible because of their firepower and armor

at least go the same route as potbs and increase the labour and cost even further to give eco players a long term goal (btw many such players quit the game after achieving that object in potbs)

[Plak]

I have not read all the posts in this thread, so maybe this was already posted by someone else.

 

I am not adverse to the concept of paying to make up for not beeing able to spend time in game.

So in general I am fine with Premium content.

 

What I do not like is when you have no option to get to the premium content except for paying for it with RL money.

 

Star Citizen does have a quite nice idea about that problem.

1. You can pay to buy ships.

2. You can pay to buy in game money.

 

The big difference is that anyone not paying extra money (on top of buying the basic game) can get everything you pay for through in game means and spending time.

 

So I vote for a premium shop for items that are obtainable with in game currency as well.

[Austrum]

Im not sure how much relevance the royal navie's historical shipcount give to this thread.

The OP is all about the prem ships and the concern weather or not they are gamebreaking or not.

 

So can we all get back to the subject and open a new thread in the historical subforum for such stuff you are researching right now?

I can move Posts to such a thread if you open it. But I am afraid that you are going offtopic a lot.

 

I think the relevance was in regards to the possibility of being able to buy 1st rate premium SOLs and might skew how large societies operate but yeah we got massively off topic.

[admin]

 

What I do not like is when you have no option to get to the premium content except for paying for it with RL money.

 

Star Citizen does have a quite nice idea about that problem.

1. You can pay to buy ships.

2. You can pay to buy in game money.

 

 

On insurance

Pledged ships in SC initially came with the life time insurance - which equals unlimited losses coverage.

The loss is not replaced immediately and the speed of replacement depends on the number of times you lose the ship in game. 

They abandoned a life time insurance when they saw they can actually make more money selling tiered insurance (1-12 months) to players. 

 

What can be borrowed from the insurance mechanic is the time delay between premium ship replacements, which will solve the potential problem of using premium ships for unlimited uninterrupted combat. But it could be that if the number of battles is higher overall - this might improve overall gameplay for everyone. More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players.

 

We will see how it works in testing.

 

On selling currency

At this stage we believe that currency must be earned by playing.

Even WOT does not sell XP, forcing you to play and create content (be the content) for other players.

Star citizen and EvE sell currency because they see the place for it in game and it works well for them (it does no allow to skip content, and you still have to level up skills for the battleship to buy it). 

 

Final decision on selling currency in the store (like EvE or GW2) will depend on the depth and importance of economy in game and it is too early to tell or provide definite response. 

 

I think the relevance was in regards to the possibility of being able to buy 1st rate premium SOLs and might skew how large societies operate but yeah we got massively off topic.

 

We said that 1st and 2nd rates can only be crafted by players. Not sure how the possibility of finding or buying a premium first rate ship of the line was derived.

[Magnum]

That is an excellent point - that by forcing players to play in order to gain "stuff" you also force them to be more available for battles for other players. More battles mean more repairs mean a healthy economy

 

As long as the baby seals can get around without getting clubbed long enough to grow up. Perhaps a new purchase could get 10 "free" repairs included with their new purchase to ease the learning curve grief?

[Pontus-SWED]

I'm so looking forward to this game

 

I need to load my Canons soon XD

[SueMyChin]

Everythings great until...

 

More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players.

 

..and less fun for players wanting an open world sandbox..

What I would suggest:

 

Arena mode = More battles = more fun for pvp oriented players

 

True open world sandbox = an organic number of battles = more fun for players wanting an actual open world sandbox

 

Arena mode + true open world sandbox = fun for pvp oriented players + fun for players wanting more than loads of PVP

 

Edited April 14, 2015 by SueMyChin