Unfair fight

[Mustapha00]

Other peoples financial investment into this game has no affect on you.

You could not be more wrong.

 

[Mustapha00]

" If a player is dominated in this game it's almost certainly by players who know more or have played longer or both. "- Algona

I did not say that neither of those two factors play a part. I did say that money spent does play a part. I'll concede that money alone cannot turn a bad player into a good player, but I'd also say it can make a good player into a great one. I've seen exactly that happen in game after game after game.

Look at the players who constantly are at or near the very top in these Events. When most players struggle to obtain a single fully upgraded reward without spending Diamonds- their decision- a handful obtain multiple copies of fully upgraded Event rewards, not just in a single Event but in repeated Events, if they so choose. Now maybe they earn all those Diamonds it takes via GBG or GE.....but then maybe they just pull out the old credit card and buy their way to the top.

And I'm fine with that. It's their money and their choice as to how to spend it. But let's not pretend that their choice to spend currency in the game does not given them an advantage.

 

[Wobblist]

And I'm fine with that. It's their money and their choice as to how to spend it. But let's not pretend that their choice to spend currency in the game does not given them an advantage.

You could not be more wrong.

But how does their city advancement affect you in any way? Being plundered? There's ways to avoid that. GBG? Join a diamond league guild and ride their wave. You can get a substantial amount of fights and negotiations in even if you're going against a stronger guild(s) that season. And some seasons you even win.

Aside from those two baseless excuses, there is absolutely no way that another person's spending has an affect on you. Sure you progress slower than them, but what's it matter to you? Enjoy the game how you play it and improve on it. You're more than capable of making a diamond farm or two, camping it out in Iron Age with a CF.

I've played and done my research on a fair share of popular, competitive games and this is the farthest from p2w. It helps but its not necessary. You look at a game like Lords Mobile where you have several aspects that take $20k+ to level fully to be considered somewhat competitive, I don't think you have any room to complain about the micro transactions in this game - especially when other people's spending doesn't impact you.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Algona]

I did say that money spent does play a part

No, you did not say money spent does play a part. Let me refresh your memory:

Pay-To-Play will beat Free-To-Play about 95% of the time.

And both the P-T-P-ers and the developers love it that way.

Going from a claim of 95% dominance to saying you meant 'playing a part' is at best disingenuous.

The 95% quote is not reflective of the game as is. To make it relevant you would have to change it so much as to be unrecognizable and wind up with something like:

While time in game and play skill are the dominant factors in game state, given relatively equal time in game and skill in game, money can be a decisive factor.

Is that what you meant to say?

 

[ahsay]

Very

And I'm fine with that. It's their money and their choice as to how to spend it. But let's not pretend that their choice to spend currency in the game does not given them an advantage.

I don't get it. So what if it does? Lot's of players have all kinds of advantages. What the OP proposes is a separation for the money advantage. How about the time advantage? People playing 5 years or more only? Smart players, let's exclude the dumb ones? We all start the same, some survive some don't.

 

[Mustapha00]

But how does their city advancement affect you in any way? Being plundered? There's ways to avoid that. GBG? Join a diamond league guild and ride their wave. You can get a substantial amount of fights and negotiations in even if you're going against a stronger guild(s) that season. And some seasons you even win.

"Way to avoid that" is a quite different proposition from "ways to defend against that". And that is an ongoing shame.

Aside from those two baseless excuses, there is absolutely no way that another person's spending has an affect on you. Sure you progress slower than them, but what's it matter to you? Enjoy the game how you play it and improve on it. You're more than capable of making a diamond farm or two, camping it out in Iron Age with a CF.

Both of which I have done.

But the fact remains that someone who is willing to spend money- lots of it- will be able to reap the benefits far faster than someone who does not.

I've played and done my research on a fair share of popular, competitive games and this is the farthest from p2w. It helps but its not necessary. You look at a game like Lords Mobile where you have several aspects that take $20k+ to level fully to be considered somewhat competitive, I don't think you have any room to complain about the micro transactions in this game - especially when other people's spending doesn't impact you.

Did I say that spending money was >the< determining factor in "winning" (whatever that means) this game? Why no, no I did not.

Did I say that spending money in this game is required to a greater degree than in other games? Why no, no I did not.

Careful....those "straw men" catch fire easily.

 

[Mustapha00]

No, you did not say money spent does play a part. Let me refresh your memory:



Going from a claim of 95% dominance to saying you meant 'playing a part' is at best disingenuous.

The 95% quote is not reflective of the game as is. To make it relevant you would have to change it so much as to be unrecognizable and wind up with something like:

While time in game and play skill are the dominant factors in game state, given relatively equal time in game and skill in game, money can be a decisive factor.

Is that what you meant to say?

I'm sorry, but the current system of PvP requires absolutely zero skill. To pretend otherwise might soothe one's conscience, but is a denial of reality.

I'll concede that time in game is a major factor, if for no other reason than a player who has played longer had access to certain in-game rewards that newer players do not, though I suppose it is possible that the Antiques Dealer might provide a means by which older rewards might be gained.

 

[Mustapha00]

Very


I don't get it. So what if it does? Lot's of players have all kinds of advantages. What the OP proposes is a separation for the money advantage. How about the time advantage? People playing 5 years or more only? Smart players, let's exclude the dumb ones? We all start the same, some survive some don't.

In my replay to Algona, I freely concede that players who have played longer do have an advantage over players who have not.

But that advantage is magnified by choosing, if they do so, to spend money.

 

[Graviton]

In my replay to Algona, I freely concede that players who have played longer do have an advantage over players who have not.

But that advantage is magnified by choosing, if they do so, to spend money.

Since diamonds do nothing but buy time, those two things (spending money and playing for a long period of time) are essentially the same thing. One is not magnified by the other, they are interchangeable. In fact I'd argue that someone who's been playing for 5 years for free will still have the advantage over a P2Per who's only been playing for one or two. And of course, both will have the advantage over newer F2Pers, which is as it should be.

You do (rather reluctantly) concede that time in game is a "major factor", but yet you don't acknowledge that your concession renders the argument that the alleged 95% success rate that you attribute to spending $$$ is flat-out wrong (unless one considers a 5% contribution "major"). You can't have it both ways.

 

[Algona]

I'm sorry, but the current system of PvP requires absolutely zero skill. To pretend otherwise might soothe one's conscience, but is a denial of reality.

You mean aside from acquiring the skills of city building, resource management, managing the tech tree, mastering DCs and Events, selecting and acquiring SBs, selecting, acquiring, and leveling GBs?

Like it or not, the skill set behind plundering hoods successfully, daily, week in and week out, is the same skill set used to master any aspect of this game.

So let's go back to it again:

Pay-To-Play will beat Free-To-Play about 95% of the time.

This is still wrong.

Players need skill and time in game to utilize money. Either time in game or skill win out over money that does not have skill guiding spending.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[ahsay]

But that advantage is magnified by choosing, if they do so, to spend money.

BUT that's life. Get used to it.

 

[Mustapha00]

BUT that's life. Get used to it.

And those who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of that advantage will continue to suffer a competitive disadvantage and will- rightfully- complain about it. Get used to it.

 

[Mustapha00]

You mean aside from acquiring the skills of city building, resource management, managing the tech tree, mastering DCs and Events, selecting and acquiring SBs, selecting, acquiring, and leveling GBs?

Like it or not, the skill set behind plundering hoods successfully, daily, week in and week out, is the same skill set used to master any aspect of this game.

Are you seriously making the argument that fielding an army of one real unit and seven Rogues requires any skill whatsoever?

Players need skill and time in game to utilize money. Either time in game or skill win out over money that does not have skill guiding spending.

But much of the margin between a player of limited time in game and/or limited skill and a long-time player can be made up by a willingness to spend money. Inno counts on it.

To offer a real-world analogy: back in my high school days in the late 1970s-early 1980s, I and several of my friends were car nuts. One of us bought a basket case of a car from the late 1960s for a couple hundred dollars for a couple of reasons: one was that he saw the potential in the car, and, two, he had limited financial means. He worked on the car, mechanically and cosmetically for the best part of a year, doing almost all of the work himself (and maybe with a friend or two lending a hand) but with an eye towards minimizing expense. At the end of that year, he had a very sharp-looking ride, one that he was justifiably proud of. He entered his car at a local car show....

Only to finish second....

Behind a guy who brought a newly-purchased brand-spanking-new Camaro Z-28.

I guess you know which one was the equivalent of the FtP player and which the equivalent of the PtP player.

I suppose that, in the end, "it is what it is". Inno has to make money to support their staff and so they aren't going to do anything that drives away their cash cows. Totally understandable. But let's not pretend that all (most?) is well-balanced in this game.

 

[Mustapha00]

Since diamonds do nothing but buy time, those two things (spending money and playing for a long period of time) are essentially the same thing. One is not magnified by the other, they are interchangeable. In fact I'd argue that someone who's been playing for 5 years for free will still have the advantage over a P2Per who's only been playing for one or two. And of course, both will have the advantage over newer F2Pers, which is as it should be.

You do (rather reluctantly) concede that time in game is a "major factor", but yet you don't acknowledge that your concession renders the argument that the alleged 95% success rate that you attribute to spending $$$ is flat-out wrong (unless one considers a 5% contribution "major"). You can't have it both ways.

Diamonds do a heckuva lot more than merely "buy time".

Of course someone who has played the game for five years will have an advantage over a newer player, regardless of whether or not that new player spends money or not. But the margin of the experienced player over the new player who is determined to be FtP is much wider than the one over the newer player who spends money.

Example: we will almost certainly have players who manage to obtain as many of the various Bakery buildings as they want, while others will struggle to obtain perhaps two. Now I suppose that it is statistically possible that the player with ten various Bakeries just had everything fall exactly right which allowed them to obtain so many. Every Incident in their city gave Stars. Every pick of Prizes yielded whatever exactly they needed to move towards the next reward. And every match lit three candles. Possible? Yes. Likely? Are you kidding me? Diamonds were spent, and by the truckload. Do we know if the player got the Diamonds via in-game mechanics (which is far more possible now than it was in times past)? Or did they whip out the VISA? And what percentage of these players uses which method?

Spending cash on this game can magnify 'skill' (depending on what one means by the term). But it can also be a substitute for 'skill'.

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-

 

[Algona]

But let's not pretend that all (most?) is well-balanced in this game.

Uh-huh.

Ace, you win. No point in talking to someone that can feel about a game the way you do and play it for five years.

 

[Johnny B. Goode]

And those who cannot, for whatever reason, avail themselves of that advantage will continue to suffer a competitive disadvantage and will- rightfully- complain about it. Get used to it.

Competitive disadvantage? So what? The game can't be "won". Ranking, both individual and guild, means absolutely nothing. Nobody can destroy anything in your city. The only real attraction to this game is to play it in a way that brings you pleasure. If being competitive brings you pleasure, I would submit that you're playing the wrong game. Sure, there's competition here, but you can't "win" it. That's why there's whining from all sides to every aspect of the game. People have come to expect to be able to "win" at everything. Never mind reality. Life in general can't be "won", that's why rich people are no happier than poor people.

I have spent money in this game. Too much, some would say. I haven't spent any in a while, though. And the funny thing is, I'm having just as much fun playing the game now as I did back when I was spending. And I laugh at those who obviously spend a fortune on getting rows and rows of an event building, because in a year or less those buildings will be outdone by new buildings. Wasted money. Kind of like the fools who have to have the latest iPhone as soon as it's out. Never mind that there will be a newer one within months (or so it seems). Wasted money. Except that it employs people. And then those people can better enjoy life. Kind of like how all the F2P players get to play this game for free because all those P2P players spend all that money. And you say they get a "competitive advantage"? In a game that can't be won? I think I know who gets the short end of that stick. (And it ain't the free players, in case you're confused.)

 

[Ebeondi Asi]

-