MrPiggi Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You didn't earn it. Didn't earn what? The exp? Yes, you did. It's not a box of 15,000 XP, instantly granted that you can buy 100 times to get to max level. It's a booster, usually 50%. Meaning you still have to go out into the world and do the quests and the grind, just less of it. And it still does not equate to "winning" anything. You are level 20 fighting another level 20 - you have absolutely no advantage over him. You are level 40 fighting another level 40 - again, you have absolutely no advantage over him. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johny Reb Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 You didn't earn it. Words need to mean something. What are you "winning" if you pay for a boost in experience gain? Even if you paid straight out for a character at top level you still have not won anything and you actually probably suck at everything that toon could do. As someone that doesn't commonly pay for these upgrades, I understand frustration with people that brag about their level even though they bought it but when you finally reach their level you will be able to do anything they can so there is no pay to win. Pay to Win basically means that there are items that must be bought with real money and those items are better than any other item in its class found through normal channels in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPiggi Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Pay to Win basically means that there are items that must be bought with real money and those items are better than any other item in its class found through normal channels in the game. This! Exactly this. Whilst we're on the topic, I'm curious to know - do you consider items that can be bought using ingame currency and real money to be pay to win? Say, a "Premium" ship that you can get instantly by buying it but is also available via ingame currency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 depends ont he situation if on match play wouldnt hurt as much but on open world just a group of 10 buying a First rate on launch for example could club anything until the others get something that could stop them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPiggi Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Well, let's pretend the game has a balanced player base of players at endgame (2nd and 1st rates) and midgame. I'm not asking it in relation to balance of the game (we're presuming it will be balanced), but in relation to the ability for a new player to pay for a "premium" ship (which, remember, is accessible to those who don't spend money either) and getting a "boost" to his start. Do people generally consider this a form of pay to win? Or another case of pay to progress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 pay to progress imo if he does not do it just to club the other new players then it would be p2w or ,,wallet warrior,, i would rather see the ability to buy some goods and cargo creates for real money like: 0.50 euro for 10 or 15 6lb cannons that could be used for ship builing or upgrading the town defences. 0.30 euro for 200logs of lignum vitea, Oak, Fir 0.30 for 2 tones of Iron Ore i think we should rename the topic to something about payed contend ingeneral since there isnt actually anything know if there will be prenium club or not but the premium ships shoudl not be bigger than the corvette Untiy/ HMS Surpise in my opinion do keep it balanced for open world or maybe buying the blueprints for some ships this way but if the prenium content can be traded by an ingame auction house system it shouldnt be such a big deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leviathan Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I don't mind purchasing the game and then paying a monthly sub especially once it reaches the MMO stage. I'm not a huge fan of the P2W format but I can see paying for asthetic upgrades or specialty items. However, I like the idea of looting in the game to find premium and special items instead of just paying for them. I do feel that the rep bonuses etc are in a way a P2W format. I understand that it doesn't give an advantage with equipment or weapons, but it does allow someone to advance in the game faster and therefore gain an advantage by accessing better ships and experience earlier than someone who doesn't pay for it. All of which is why I personally like the subscription format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPiggi Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 I do feel that the rep bonuses etc are in a way a P2W format. I understand that it doesn't give an advantage with equipment or weapons, but it does allow someone to advance in the game faster and therefore gain an advantage by accessing better ships and experience earlier than someone who doesn't pay for it. All of which is why I personally like the subscription format. But it's not. They advance in the game faster but that does not equate to them "winning" anything, because they will be on equal footing to everyone else at whatever level they reach. I don't like the idea of premium or special items dropping as loot. Why have that system? The whole point of a premium system is to provide the devs a way to make money, making special items and just dropping them at random is worse than having them available in a shop since it'll just mean some people get a rare advantage over others, out of nothing but pure luck. It might be interesting to start a poll on the matter of the financial model of the game. I would definitely be interested to see the numbers of forum users as to which they prefer (F2P, Microtransactions, Sub-based, one price based etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leviathan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Myself I like 'looting' for items. It also gives others who may not be hardcore pvp something else to enjoy which ultimately means more players and more money. Understandably some will get lucky early and find an item quickly (that is the nature of luck) but overall everyone will have to work for it. I feel it makes the game more organic instead of the quick gratification of simply buying the stuff you need. I was simply saying I prefer a monthly sub fee and some asthetic items being sold in the 'shop' which will give the developers a steady stream of revenue. I prefer the loot method for critical items so that everyone has access to the items as long as they pay the sub fee for the game. Again, it's all my preference and certainly may not be the best option for this game. This method will probably fit better once it reaches MMO status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPiggi Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Myself I like 'looting' for items. It also gives others who may not be hardcore pvp something else to enjoy which ultimately means more players and more money. Understandably some will get lucky early and find an item quickly (that is the nature of luck) but overall everyone will have to work for it. I feel it makes the game more organic instead of the quick gratification of simply buying the stuff you need. You are contradicting yourself here; you are saying the looting system means overall, people will have to work for it and it's the opposite of the quick gratification of just buying the stuff you need. It is the opposite - you are getting the quick gratification of having a lucky drop, or you are grinding and gathering the money required to buy a good. I can almost guarantee that if there is a subscription fee, there will be no premium shop. The developers will already have a steady stream of income and will not need to waste their time creating premium items to attract peoples wallets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The developers will already have a steady stream of income and will not need to waste their time creating premium items to attract peoples wallets. +1 but what if there is no monthly fee? i think we need an offical statement of the admin if there is something planend in future or if this not an high priority for now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leviathan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 You are contradicting yourself here; you are saying the looting system means overall, people will have to work for it and it's the opposite of the quick gratification of just buying the stuff you need. It is the opposite - you are getting the quick gratification of having a lucky drop, or you are grinding and gathering the money required to buy a good. I can almost guarantee that if there is a subscription fee, there will be no premium shop. The developers will already have a steady stream of income and will not need to waste their time creating premium items to attract peoples wallets. [/quote No i'm not so you can quit twisting my words. I said instant gratification due to people simply spending real money to purchase certain items versus paying a monthly sub fee and having to loot for certain items. God forbid people have to work for anything. Basically my entire point is to say I support a monthly sub as my preferred method. It's not worth arguing so i'm done with the topic. I'm sure the developers will make the right decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPiggi Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I'm not twisting any words. You said what you said, and I explained why it was wrong. Whether you meant to say something else is another point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted July 1, 2014 Share Posted July 1, 2014 i didnt read all the posts now but i just asume for now you are both missunderstanding each other maybe language barrier or choosing of words. be nice to each other 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Månis Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 New ships = money for Devs, this will be stupid not to invest into 100s of new models.. To build 1 high quality model about $500-$1000 Ship is added to a game. 25$ per new model x 100.000+ players buy it = $2500000 just for 1 ship! Figure it out! I will pay $ for sweet boats that I like..no matter how much they cost. Do not follow POTBS mistake and make all ships free...!!!! Only last few months they added premium boats and made ton of money... Are you saying that the best ships ( premium) would be bought with real money or am i missunderstanding you? Pay to win is never a good idea for games that want to survive for a longer time.... I must say that i really like what i see so far. Keep up the good work 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 New ships = money for Devs, this will be stupid not to invest into 100s of new models.. To build 1 high quality model about $500-$1000 Ship is added to a game. 25$ per new model x 100.000+ players buy it = $2500000 just for 1 ship! as much i understand your thinking but 25 is to much for new ship kinda remembers me of shipsimulator dlc's for that money i could get enough games on steam that would keep me busy for years. maybe later some token item that you need for bigger lineships but hell no 25 bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johny Reb Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 Are you saying that the best ships ( premium) would be bought with real money or am i missunderstanding you? Pay to win is never a good idea for games that want to survive for a longer time.... I must say that i really like what i see so far. Keep up the good work You must understand Wind, Manis. Barely a post goes buy without wind presenting an idea on how to take more out of our wallets. @wind... 25$ is gouging in my opinion and will definitely lead to pay to win. You quote Potbs "mistakes" and you are partially right in that they made alot of money from it but you fail to see that it is a dying game in part because of this pay to win feature. Why in the name of all things holy would I pay 25 dollars for a virtual boat that could be lost immediately after I buy it? I'd rather fill up half my gas tank and watch it last a week. I just figured it out. I had an epiphany. I used to think Wind was a programer. Someone with aspirations to create a successful online game and that why all this talk about charging for this and that. But now I think I was wrong in that assumption. Wind said, "I will pay $ for sweet boats that I like.. no matter how much they cost." I think Wind may be that player that has the money to spend hundreds or even thousands on a game and that is how he separates himself from the rest. Be it through better gear or through shiny gear, Wind knows most people can't pay that kind of money or won't so he can become "better" than the rest because hes willing to "$ for sweet boats.... no matter how much they cost." Well, to each his own. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belphe Posted July 13, 2014 Share Posted July 13, 2014 What if the game is sold @~£20 one time payment but an in-game online store sells "vanity" items such as pretty sails, dyes, logos, flags, fancy clothes etc. for real money - items that DON'T influence the gameplay in any way? I'm no expert but would that work long term and keep the game profitable (Rift and DotA2 work like that)? If not, perhaps a sort of a premium account (faster building time, resource gathering time, quicker XP gain) could help? If you think about it it would not be "pay to win" per se. One with no premium could still spend more time playing then the one with premium account to earn the same amount of XP but it would be very visible when those two met each other in battle who was the better sailor. The game will require skill learnt during countless hours spent playing and no premium will buy anybody victory which I believe is what we all want... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johny Reb Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 The pay to wind feature balanced with the need for the game to be able to support itself is a close run thing. Can a game survive simply off vanity items? And does the owners of this game want to simply survive or would they rather thrive? I look to other games to try and find balance but I'm often left with more questions then answers. In WoT they sell premium tanks but in no way does that mean they will always beat you. In an open field 1v1 they may but in the variety of the game and player choices those tanks are still vulnerable. So, part of me is ok with premium ships as long as they are not OP ships to be sold. These ships will be bought and they will consistently generate cash for the company I would think. But, I'm not sure if it will work in an age of sail game where small advantages can make huge differences. I think in a group fight it wouldn't matter much unless one fleet was full of them but in a 1v1 it could make all the difference. So to avoid the fleet battles being full of premium ships you would have to do one of two things. First, you could make the ships expensive or you could put a time limit on how often a player could buy one. I guess another way of using the premium ship idea would to have the premium ships be those historical ships that were highly decorated. Their performance would be just as good but no better than the other ships in its class but will be flashy and unique. A vanity ship per se. This would remove any hint at pay to win but will still provide an incentive to own one. Now I'm not saying I want to see them implement premium ships. I just wonder if they can make the money needed to grow and expand if they don't 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maturin Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 The pay to wind feature Freudian slip 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belphe Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 The pay to wind feature balanced with the need for the game to be able to support itself is a close run thing. Can a game survive simply off vanity items? And does the owners of this game want to simply survive or would they rather thrive? I look to other games to try and find balance but I'm often left with more questions then answers. In WoT they sell premium tanks but in no way does that mean they will always beat you. In an open field 1v1 they may but in the variety of the game and player choices those tanks are still vulnerable. So, part of me is ok with premium ships as long as they are not OP ships to be sold. These ships will be bought and they will consistently generate cash for the company I would think. But, I'm not sure if it will work in an age of sail game where small advantages can make huge differences. I think in a group fight it wouldn't matter much unless one fleet was full of them but in a 1v1 it could make all the difference. So to avoid the fleet battles being full of premium ships you would have to do one of two things. First, you could make the ships expensive or you could put a time limit on how often a player could buy one. I guess another way of using the premium ship idea would to have the premium ships be those historical ships that were highly decorated. Their performance would be just as good but no better than the other ships in its class but will be flashy and unique. A vanity ship per se. This would remove any hint at pay to win but will still provide an incentive to own one. Now I'm not saying I want to see them implement premium ships. I just wonder if they can make the money needed to grow and expand if they don't We must remember that WoT premium tanks are never the top tier tanks - they are not the top of the ladder (one is tier X but it can only be won). That is why people are willing to pay to "skip" a long grind and jump right into the end-game fun. In NA we could make e.g. 3rd rate ships similar way but a problem could emerge if those ships engaged in 1 vs 1 battles against much lower tiered opponents. In WoT every tank can "only" meet -2 / +2 tiers and the battling groups are equal in numbers. The premium tanks are slightly OP on their level but they blend in when played against higher tiers. In NA with premium ships we could see situations where a fleet of 3 slightly OP "golden" 3rd rates obliterates barques or frigates sailing solo because here everyone can choose their opponent. And even though that frigate would stand no chance even against three "normal" 3rd rates her captain would definitely start a ranting thread somewhere on this forum... (how the premium ships are so very OP)... We could allow premium ships in NA to earn more XP and money but otherwise NOT make them ANY different to their standard counterparts. That could make people want to spend money on them and still keep the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johny Reb Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 We must remember that WoT premium tanks are never the top tier tanks - they are not the top of the ladder (one is tier X but it can only be won). That is why people are willing to pay to "skip" a long grind and jump right into the end-game fun. In NA we could make e.g. 3rd rate ships similar way but a problem could emerge if those ships engaged in 1 vs 1 battles against much lower tiered opponents. In WoT every tank can "only" meet -2 / +2 tiers and the battling groups are equal in numbers. The premium tanks are slightly OP on their level but they blend in when played against higher tiers. In NA with premium ships we could see situations where a fleet of 3 slightly OP "golden" 3rd rates obliterates barques or frigates sailing solo because here everyone can choose their opponent. And even though that frigate would stand no chance even against three "normal" 3rd rates her captain would definitely start a ranting thread somewhere on this forum... (how the premium ships are so very OP)... We could allow premium ships in NA to earn more XP and money but otherwise NOT make them ANY different to their standard counterparts. That could make people want to spend money on them and still keep the balance. The XP or in game money gain would definitely be incentive and I hadn't thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirones Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) how about warbonds like in Heroes and Generals that gives you over some months the gold+ depending on how expensiv the version you had buyed some % ontop of it. i.e.: a single Bond for 2500gold that runs over 6months and gives you back over the time the totall number you paid for it and 13% ontop of it to you. or some sort of talisman mechanic like in War Thunder where you an get premium like rewards in the current match type gamemode but this disscusion really belongs in the prenium account and upgrades thread. thanks forum moderators for cleaning up Edited July 16, 2014 by Mirones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIerrick de Badas Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 i Would spend money in : - Good colors/figurehead for my ships (visual customistion => €€€) - Gold ship that make me win a large amount of ingame cash that i can spend to upgrade my ships. Like in wot this ships are not the best of their clas but they get a large advantage in gaining ingame cash. - Captain account that give +X% cash +X% xperience in battle as every games like wot/war thundert etc were people drive something trying to kill someone - Buying the game if necessary but i know some of my teamate would not that could finally make the other one ready to pay not pay because we want to play as a team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyraz Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Couldn't agree more! The problem with premium content (be it 'cosmetic only' or 'pay to win') is this: Development effort tends to go where the money comes from. This is not something that is unique to game development, rather the contrary: even if you love the work you are doing, you'll need the income to continue doing it, so you better focus on that which produces income. In a Premium based sales model, the money comes from the 'extras'. This inherently makes the 'extras' a first-class citizen; the development studio needs to (continue to) produce 'extras' to ensure their continued revenue stream. In this sales model, the core gameplay will always have to compete with the 'extras' for development time. (This is even more true for the 'Freemium' based sales model, where all the revenue is generated through 'extras'). In a subscription based (or even a 'box price') sales model, people pay money for the core gameplay. Because of this, there is a financial incentive for the development studio for the continued improvement of the core gameplay; the lack of Premium content ensures that the core gameplay becomes the most important aspect of development, because it is the means to generate revenue. I like to play a game where the core gameplay gets maximum attention and the effort is focused on making the game the best it can be. I will happily pay, and continue to pay, for a game that offers good gameplay, even more so if I can see the gameplay improve over time. ~Brigand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now