Attrition-How high can you go?

[PJS299]

I am not arguing that spending is against the rules of FOE or even that a little spending will drastically tip the scales between free to play and pay to win. However, I don't see any actual arguments as to why anyone should gain a massive advantage with spending lots of $$$ in a game. All attempts to justify it are farcical ( trying to compare a game to collecting comic books is a good example) or attempts to justify it on the grounds that other online games have the same thing. Haven't seen anyone offer a coherent argument as to why this should be allowed on the merits and I doubt I will.

Inno needs money. People pay money.

Inno gets money, people get advantages.

 

[Meat Butcher]

You seem to have trouble distinguishing between collecting something and a game so go figure.

you are avoiding the word "hobby" which would / should make it clear to you.
Others have tried to point it out its a hobby as well.

Are you saying playing a video game cannot be called a hobby?
here is the definition once again for you.

hobby - an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.

 

[jaymoney23456]

you are avoiding the word "hobby" which would / should make it clear to you.
Others have tried to point it out its a hobby as well.

Are you saying playing a video game cannot be called a hobby?
here is the definition once again for you.

hobby - an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure.

If I play halo online against other gamers I don't have an advantage or disadvantage based on spending extra money. I don't have the option to buy an overshield or a grenade launcher or anything else. Everyone has the same weapons and the same ability to pick up weapons on the map. Even playing field.

 

[Emberguard]

However, I don't see any actual arguments as to why anyone should gain a massive advantage with spending lots of $$$ in a game.

Ok. Remove all advantages for money. What exactly is your plan for keeping up with running costs? 'Cause the only way the game stays is if it can cover all its yearly expenditure. Which under the current payment model it succeeds at

Skins only? Would that be enough? Subscription? A lot of people would never consider staying under those conditions without a dedicated server for it. That could theoretically happen but who knows what sort of price it'd be asking. And if you're paying a subscription is it stripping off all paid content? Or is the paid stuff included? One time fee to buy the game? Would anyone actually consider that if they're not already buying? What price would we expect it to cost knowing how much diamonds sell for?

On paper I'd love to have a game with even footing. In practice you'd still have to find someone paying the bills because it's online and has servers. It's not running solely on my own machine.

If I'm not willing to sacrifice even the smallest amount of money for that (now, not just over my time playing. Because you're asking to change it into even footing) then it'd be unreasonable to expect those that are currently spending to get nothing extra. As a business it's not going to be voluntary contributions, it's business transactions. Which yes, if players spend massive amounts of cash that's going to compound into a massive short-term advantage one way or another regardless of where we draw the line on what that advantage should be. The only way that doesn't happen is if it's purely cosmetic or on something with no real gameplay value or you require everyone playing together to pay the same amount as each other

 

[Meat Butcher]

If I play halo online against other gamers I don't have an advantage or disadvantage based on spending extra money. I don't have the option to buy an overshield or a grenade launcher or anything else. Everyone has the same weapons and the same ability to pick up weapons on the map. Even playing field.

Try to keep up with me, this is not about diamonds, re-read my post it was asking you if you believe a video game can be considered a hobby.

once we get this cleared up we can discuss diamonds.

 

[Graviton]

Try to keep up with me, this is not about diamonds, re-read my post it was asking you if you believe a video game can be considered a hobby.

once we get this cleared up we can discuss diamonds.

We don't need it to be cleared up, everybody understands except jay. And even jay understands, he just won't admit it.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

I am not arguing that spending is against the rules of FOE or even that a little spending will drastically tip the scales between free to play and pay to win. However, I don't see any actual arguments as to why anyone should gain a massive advantage with spending lots of $$$ in a game. All attempts to justify it are farcical ( trying to compare a game to collecting comic books is a good example) or attempts to justify it on the grounds that other online games have the same thing. Haven't seen anyone offer a coherent argument as to why this should be allowed on the merits and I doubt I will.

It's because you just like arguing , Inno wants to make money , some of the players have money. Simple economics and the world does not revolve around you.

 

[NWWolverine]

I am not arguing that spending is against the rules of FOE or even that a little spending will drastically tip the scales between free to play and pay to win. However, I don't see any actual arguments as to why anyone should gain a massive advantage with spending lots of $$$ in a game. All attempts to justify it are farcical ( trying to compare a game to collecting comic books is a good example) or attempts to justify it on the grounds that other online games have the same thing. Haven't seen anyone offer a coherent argument as to why this should be allowed on the merits and I doubt I will.

You argue just to argue. You're wrong and everyone but you knows it.

 

[jaymoney23456]

There are a few stubborn players who seemingly cannot or choose not to understand the concept of a game being an activity where its a level playing field for all players. So, those players can just sit and be wrong and enjoy their wrongness.

 

[Emberguard]

There are a few stubborn players who seemingly cannot or choose not to understand the concept of a game being an activity where its a level playing field for all players.

We get the concept of level playing field. Typically means standalone game with little to no development after release beyond bug fixes and finishing stuff up for maybe one or two years if you're lucky. Usually would mean servers get shut down in favor of newer games and the games no longer being obtainable/playable.

That doesn't answer the question on how you intend everyone to have exactly the same stuff and still bring in the revenue necessary for continued development on bi-weekly updates / monthly content releases 13+ years after initial release (not be a loss leader or supported by revenue from unrelated products).

What do you expect InnoGames to replace their revenue with if you're asking them to remove paid advantage?

I'm not against making things even if doing so is capable of supporting the game. We all object if we think things swing too far towards pay to play. But with the concept of even play older cities would still need some way to continue developing. If cities aren't able to continue developing then they stagnate and that's arguably worse if you want to continue having a game when that's a big chunk of the game. Of course that does mean brand new cities are playing in the same area as cities that have been developing their strength for the past 10+ years and will continue to develop it.

 

[jaymoney23456]

We get the concept of level playing field. Typically means standalone game with little to no development after release beyond bug fixes and finishing stuff up for maybe one or two years if you're lucky. Usually would mean servers get shut down in favor of newer games and the games no longer being obtainable/playable.

That doesn't answer the question on how you intend everyone to have exactly the same stuff and still bring in the revenue necessary for continued development on bi-weekly updates / monthly content releases 13+ years after initial release (not be a loss leader or supported by revenue from unrelated products).

What do you expect InnoGames to replace their revenue with if you're asking them to remove paid advantage?

I'm not against making things even if doing so is capable of supporting the game. We all object if we think things swing too far towards pay to play. But with the concept of even play older cities would still need some way to continue developing. If cities aren't able to continue developing then they stagnate and that's arguably worse if you want to continue having a game when that's a big chunk of the game. Of course that does mean brand new cities are playing in the same area as cities that have been developing their strength for the past 10+ years and will continue to develop it.

To start with every console game ever created does not have the option to pay extra money to gain an advantage playing the game. The most some have is where you can buy different aesthetic looks for an avatar or something like that but not something that gives an edge in gameplay.

 

[jaymoney23456]

We get the concept of level playing field. Typically means standalone game with little to no development after release beyond bug fixes and finishing stuff up for maybe one or two years if you're lucky. Usually would mean servers get shut down in favor of newer games and the games no longer being obtainable/playable.

That doesn't answer the question on how you intend everyone to have exactly the same stuff and still bring in the revenue necessary for continued development on bi-weekly updates / monthly content releases 13+ years after initial release (not be a loss leader or supported by revenue from unrelated products).

What do you expect InnoGames to replace their revenue with if you're asking them to remove paid advantage?

I'm not against making things even if doing so is capable of supporting the game. We all object if we think things swing too far towards pay to play. But with the concept of even play older cities would still need some way to continue developing. If cities aren't able to continue developing then they stagnate and that's arguably worse if you want to continue having a game when that's a big chunk of the game. Of course that does mean brand new cities are playing in the same area as cities that have been developing their strength for the past 10+ years and will continue to develop it.

Also, I am saying the pay to win has gotten out of hand. Used to be that one could gain some advantage with $$ but it generally didn't drastically skew things for them over the free to pay players. Now the most important aspects of the game (GBG, events, and QI) give massive advantages to paying players. That is what I take issue with and I am not the only one.

 

[Pericles the Lion]

Also, I am saying the pay to win has gotten out of hand. Used to be that one could gain some advantage with $$ but it generally didn't drastically skew things for them over the free to pay players. Now the most important aspects of the game (GBG, events, and QI) give massive advantages to paying players. That is what I take issue with and I am not the only one.

Where's the beef? Why do you care about how much money other players spend on the game? FoE began as a F2P game with the opportunity for in-game purchases and it remains so. I'm strictly F2P and could not care less if other players want to spend money on the game. Tbh, I am glad that these players are out there because somebody has to pay in order for INNO to keep the lights on. Do these players gain an advantage over me? I really don't know. Probably not because money is not necessarily a good substitute for skill. But I get a lot of satisfaction from holding my own (and then some) against players that spend to play. I think that you are either unable, or unwilling, to spend on the game and are resentful of others that are not similarly situated. Get over it or find a console game that suits your needs better.

 

[Graviton]

There are a few stubborn players who seemingly cannot or choose not to understand the concept of a game being an activity where its a level playing field for all players. So, those players can just sit and be wrong and enjoy their wrongness.

 

[Sharmon the Impaler]

Also, I am saying the pay to win has gotten out of hand. Used to be that one could gain some advantage with $$ but it generally didn't drastically skew things for them over the free to pay players. Now the most important aspects of the game (GBG, events, and QI) give massive advantages to paying players. That is what I take issue with and I am not the only one.

Every online game put out in the past 10 years has put out DLC that makes the games a much better experience and gives you a serious advantage over someone that doesn't spend money IF THE GAME CAN BE WON. This is our point , FOE CANNOT BE WON BY ANY INDIVIDUAL PLAYER EVEN IF THEY BOUGHT THE SERVERS OUTRIGHT. Get over it sunshine you are wrong. No I will not type you out an exhaustive list , go look for yourself. Start with Farmville and work your way up to 2024 , there are thousands of them.

 

[Disgruntled Veteran]

To start with every console game ever created does not have the option to pay extra money to gain an advantage playing the game. The most some have is where you can buy different aesthetic looks for an avatar or something like that but not something that gives an edge in gameplay.

Have you ever played GTA Online? Which is only one example of a plethora of games that you can spend money on to get an advantage.

The big question, what’s the difference between long-term f2p players with high stats compared to those who spend money to fast track?

Time, the answer is time!

The only way I see this game becoming 100% “fair” across the board would be to have dedicated servers to separate players by how long they’ve been playing. In reality all those servers would have to be duplicated to separate f2p from p2p.

How much do you think they’re willing to spend to keep this game going?

 

[NWWolverine]

Have you ever played GTA Online? Which is only one example of a plethora of games that you can spend money on to get an advantage.

The big question, what’s the difference between long-term f2p players with high stats compared to those who spend money to fast track?

Time, the answer is time!

The only way I see this game becoming 100% “fair” across the board would be to have dedicated servers to separate players by how long they’ve been playing. In reality all those servers would have to be duplicated to separate f2p from p2p.

How much do you think they’re willing to spend to keep this game going?

Nailed it. Time vs money. You will either have one or the other. Very, very few have both. I kinda envy the long term players that have advanced through the years and seen the gradual changes that the game has offered. I also love to be able to compete with them in some areas of the game by spending a little cash otherwise, it's a game where the long term players will always dominate the newer players in every aspect of the game. What new player wants to always be the weakling in the guild? None....

 

[Emberguard]

The only way I see this game becoming 100% “fair” across the board would be to have dedicated servers to separate players by how long they’ve been playing. In reality all those servers would have to be duplicated to separate f2p from p2p.

How much do you think they’re willing to spend to keep this game going?

Even if they were to try it, that wouldn't work longterm to pair based on time playing without making it incredibly broad like 2+ years is all grouped together.

The longer you play the smaller the player pool from the year you started playing is going to be. At some point you'd have to pair people against newer players.

That's not even considering the logistics of how you're going to implement such a system. You can't move players to a different world. Once they're on a world they're stuck there. So it'd mean fragmenting the playerbase within each pre-existing world and I doubt that'd be viable. Everyone's already in Guilds and have their Friends Lists set up

 

[85gt]

The game will never be fair till all script users are perma banned, and most all top guilds have at least 1, gaming a pastime for me and Im about done with this 1, the last time I saw so many nutcases in 1 place was in military service, but even that don`t compare to a group of gen Z`s

 

[Pericles the Lion]

The game will never be fair till all script users are perma banned, and most all top guilds have at least 1, gaming a pastime for me and Im about done with this 1, the last time I saw so many nutcases in 1 place was in military service, but even that don`t compare to a group of gen Z`s

Somebody has had a bit too much caffeine today.