Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
daegog

Gathering/Crafting Dedicated accounts, could RUIN the game..

Recommended Posts

You - twice - have falsely attributed posts to me. Trying to explain it away just makes you look like a liar, frankly.

Everyone makes mistakes. You made a few here.

edit: Just to spoonfeed this to ya, again:

Jah said:

Quote

I don't think anyone is really claiming that alts are superior to friends. The claim is that having multiple accounts provides advantages over having one.

Then you said:

Quote

coolwaters is, and very explicitly, mere seconds after liking this post.

And you were either wrong, or lying.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jah said:

Perhaps its not power in the sense that you mean it, but it is certainly power in the sense that I mean it.

oh fun we've entered the semantics and arguing definitions portion of the discussion... :P

Seriously though point stands utility, flexibility doesn't equate to power regardless of how you mean it or want it to mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, goose said:

You can't pay to bypass it. The only way to buy runes is with the in-game currency that you can only earn by playing.

You can pay to increase the rate at which you accumulate them when playing (up to over +100%). So yes, you can't buy pass playing altogether, but you can pay to reduce the time it takes to earn them.

Do I think that's pay to win? No. Because you can acquire it reasonably through game play.

 ATL accounts offer an advantage there is literally no other way to get than by paying for it, and it's not marginal, it's significant.  As in, can you craft yes/no, significant.

Back to League. Avoiding that type of P2W is the exact reason Riot lets you buy new champions with in game currency. If/when ACE ever allows for active training of some sort, then the pay for ALT problem reduces dramatically as a pay to win mechanic.  

As it is now, sorry but it is pay for power, so it is pay to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bemoan all you want but as I said an hour ago, alts aren't a problem. I've given you data from one of Eve's developer. And that game encourages alts even more than this will, they don't see many people making alts. The world isn't going to end. You're not going to lose out on fun. The game isn't going to be ruined.

Edited by Zachdidit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jah said:

Perhaps its not power in the sense that you mean it, but it is certainly power in the sense that I mean it.

And yes, I think having multiple combat trained alts adds power as well. (Power in the sense that I mean it.)

This is my bigger point. The disagreement here is less that the power difference EXISTS and more that it matters. One could argue, and rightly I think, that utility is a type of power. But the fact is that player skill will always be a factor that no developer can code around in a game like this, and a better player will usually beat a worse player even if everything else is identical.

To me, that says that in-game benefits that do not account for a larger difference than player skill are really not important. I think this raises an issue more with how to make crafting have a relevant power curve than how to make alt accounts less viable. If all of the individual things a player can do rely on player skill more than access to skill trees, this will be a self-resolving problem without anyone having to change their philosophy.

Remember that you have to convince Blair that there's an issue with this, not me. Even when I agree, I play devil's advocate here based on what Blair has said in videos about the difference between power and utility. If you think that utility is exactly equivalent to numerical power, his argument makes no sense, but you won't change his mind on it by just saying "you are wrong."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, coolwaters said:

You - twice - have falsely attributed posts to me. Trying to explain it away just makes you look like a liar, frankly.

Everyone makes mistakes. You made a few here.

edit: Just to spoonfeed this to ya, again:

Jah said:

Then you said:

And you were either wrong, or lying.

"On the second, whether you see it or not, alt accounts absolutely increase the "measurable power" of the player who owns them. Observing that a single alt account is n0t necessarily better than a friend's account certainly doesn't imply otherwise. To the contrary, it confirms that increase in power. Now you can do what it took you and a friend to do before.Simple fact: alt accounts are even more "P2W" than VIP with multiple general skill trains."

Okay, let me go back over this again.

You're saying that having an alt account is better than having no alt account and a friend without an alt account, and that having an alt account and a friend with an alt account is better than having an alt account and a friend without an alt account.

So what you're saying, in laymans terms, is that having friends is good, but having alt accounts is better, and having friends with alt accounts also is better-ER.

The only thing you are NOT saying is that having a friend is better than having an alt account.

Have I got this right? Because if you're not saying that having a friend is better or equal to having an alt account, then you ARE saying that having an alt account is better. Unless you're actually making an argument that the moon landing was staged, in which case I am indeed very confused.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

You can pay to increase the rate at which you accumulate them when playing (up to over +100%). So yes, you can't buy pass playing altogether, but you can pay to reduce the time it takes to earn them.

Do I think that's pay to win? No. Because you can acquire it reasonably through game play.

 ATL accounts offer an advantage there is literally no other way to get than by paying for it, and it's not marginal, it's significant.  As in, can you craft yes/no, significant.

Back to League. Avoiding that type of P2W is the exact reason Riot lets you buy new champions with in game currency. If/when ACE ever allows for active training of some sort, then the pay for ALT problem reduces dramatically as a pay to win mechanic.  

As it is now, sorry but it is pay for power, so it is pay to win.

No analogy is perfect, you're right. It has some problems that don't match up, which will be the case because no analogy is perfect.

That said, the issue here is, again, that you and I disagree that the difference is significant. This thread will never resolve that disagreement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, goose said:

No analogy is perfect, you're right. It has some problems that don't match up, which will be the case because no analogy is perfect.

That said, the issue here is, again, that you and I disagree that the difference is significant. This thread will never resolve that disagreement.

I honestly hope your right.  I've heard too many people, both players and prospective players, say that they feel this is a potential game breaker for them to be that optimistic.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, pang said:

oh fun we've entered the semantics and arguing definitions portion of the discussion... :P

Seriously though point stands utility, flexibility doesn't equate to power regardless of how you mean it or want it to mean.

Dude, you were the one who tried tell me in what sense I meant power.

And yes, flexibility can certainly equate to power.

How about rather than jabbing at me, you try to understand me?


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, goose said:

The disagreement here is less that the power difference EXISTS and more that it matters.

Look around and I think you will find people in this thread who are saying that the power difference doesn't even exist. Once we agree that it does exist, we can talk about how much it matters.

I would not argue the power difference is HUGE. I would never argue that alts are superior to real players. This can be a reasonable discussion if people stop trying to distort what others are saying, crafting strawmen to bash, etc. We could use less histrionics and more attempts to understand opposing views.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KrakkenSmacken said:

I honestly hope your right.  I've heard too many people, both players and prospective players, say that they feel this is a potentially game breaker for them to be that optimistic.

I feel like it's going to be a balancing act for sure, and it won't be hard to drop the ball. Like, the easiest fix for the harvesting multi-account problem would be to make harvesting time consuming. But the obvious drawback with that solution is that if harvesting is SO time-consuming that it makes alt accounts a waste of money, it has to be fun too, and right now it's pretty boring.

I am most likely optimistic about the final outcome, and I have no doubt that when the game launches, I will have some problems with what we have. But I also think that a lot of the issues people have with the game RIGHT NOW are good to point out, not to debate at length. I sincerely doubt we are telling the dev team anything they aren't already acutely aware of with this thread, and arguing amongst ourselves won't change that. I'd rather wait and see what they actually plan to launch and critique that than speculate endlessly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jah said:

Look around and I think you will find people in this thread who are saying that the power difference doesn't even exist. Once we agree that it does exist, we can talk about how much it matters.

I would not argue the power difference is HUGE. I would never argue that alts are superior to real players. This can be a reasonable discussion if people stop trying to distort what others are saying, crafting strawmen to bash, etc. We could use less histrionics and more attempts to understand opposing views.

So, this is the difference in our philosophies. In my estimation, if the power difference isn't big enough to matter more than individual skill, it isn't a power difference. Like a small DPS difference between identically geared classes in a raid pull, it just doesn't bother me. But I'm not trying to argue that there is no functional difference between players with alt accounts and players without - there are even numerical differences.

My point is and always has been that, unless those numbers result in a Kirito-style "my numbers are bigger than yours, ergo you can not kill me" situation, it isn't something that warrants a dozen 10-page threads in the forums all calling for blood. Isolate the problems and propose fixes for them, and I will not have an issue. And a lot of people do that, so...good.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jah said:

Dude, you were the one who tried tell me in what sense I meant power.

And yes, flexibility can certainly equate to power.

How about rather than jabbing at me, you try to understand me?

It was a joke hence the tongue sticking out emoji. A joke knowing full well what I just wrote. Don't have to be super serious all the time geez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goose said:

Okay, let me go back over this again.

You're saying that having an alt account is better than having no alt account and a friend without an alt account, and that having an alt account and a friend with an alt account is better than having an alt account and a friend without an alt account.

So what you're saying, in laymans terms, is that having friends is good, but having alt accounts is better, and having friends with alt accounts also is better-ER.

The only thing you are NOT saying is that having a friend is better than having an alt account.

Have I got this right? Because if you're not saying that having a friend is better or equal to having an alt account, then you ARE saying that having an alt account is better. Unless you're actually making an argument that the moon landing was staged, in which case I am indeed very confused.

I think you've got the logic twisted up. And I realize this is all beating a dead horse, but I just enjoy logic. So consider these statements:

A = one player with two accounts (i.e. an alt account) is better than one player with one account

B = one player with two accounts is not better than two players with two accounts (i.e. you have a friend and you each have your own account)

So let's parse the controversial statement:

Quote

"On the second, whether you see it or not, alt accounts absolutely increase the "measurable power" of the player who owns them.

"A is true."

Quote

Observing that a single alt account is n0t necessarily better than a friend's account certainly doesn't imply otherwise.

"If B were true, it would not mean that A is false"

Note that he never states whether B is true or not, he offers no opinion on the subject.

Quote

To the contrary, it confirms that increase in power. Now you can do what it took you and a friend to do before.Simple fact: alt accounts are even more "P2W" than VIP with multiple general skill trains."

This is complicated, it requires a few extra unspoken assumptions to follow the logic. To say what it actually means I'd have to define about 3 more statements, so let's skip that for now. It boils down to something like (very roughly speaking) "B implies A."

Anyway, back to your last statement:

Quote

Because if you're not saying that having a friend is better or equal to having an alt account, then you ARE saying that having an alt account is better.

This isn't right. One is allowed to have no opinion on B. If I avoid stating that B is true, that doesn't mean I believe B to be false. It just means I don't want to get into B here. Which I think is a good idea for us all, because B is a harder to prove than A, and proving A has already produced several pages of argument.

Edited by Avloren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pang said:

It was a joke hence the tongue sticking out emoji. A joke knowing full well what I just wrote. Don't have to be super serious all the time geez.

Jokes nestled between jabs are easy to mistake for additional jabs.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Jah said:

Jokes nestled between jabs are easy to mistake for additional jabs.

Well it (or any other comments) wasn't meant to be a jab, sorry if it came off that way.

Edited by pang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Avloren said:

I think you've got the logic twisted up. And I realize this is all beating a dead horse, but I just enjoy logic. So consider these statements:

A = one player with two accounts (i.e. an alt account) is better than one player with one account

B = one player with two accounts is not better than two players with two accounts (i.e. you have a friend and you each have your own account)

So let's parse the controversial statement:

"A is true."

"If B were true, it would not mean that A is false"

Note that he never states whether B is true or not, he offers no opinion on the subject.

This is complicated, it requires a few extra unspoken assumptions to follow the logic. To say what it actually means I'd have to define about 3 more statements, so let's skip that for now. It boils down to something like (very roughly speaking) "B implies A."

Anyway, back to your last statement:

This isn't right. One is allowed to have no opinion on B. If I avoid stating that B is true, that doesn't mean I believe B to be false. It just means I don't want to get into B here. Which I think is a good idea for us all, because B is a harder to prove than A, and proving A has already produced several pages of argument.

As a general statement, you are correct that one is allowed to have no opinion on B. But he spent the rest of the argument, as well as roughly half of all time since I first had this argument with him on these forums, stating that my position - that alt accounts do not add a significant amount of power to individuals - is wrong. The fact that he insisted that he wasn't claiming that alt accounts are better than having friends is technically a true statement - he never used those words, and his actual wording implied that he was indifferent on the subject, or else that he believed the exact opposite.

However, in the context of the fact that he is constantly telling me that my opinion on B is wrong, I am generally inclined to assume that that is where he is coming from in arguments like this one. If he wasn't constantly asserting that buying a bunch of alt accounts was absolutely necessary in order to win the game, which by extension turns it into a Pay to Win model, I wouldn't even bother getting into this argument because he hasn't said anything particularly inflammatory to justify it.

TL;DR: Using grammar and grammar alone, this is an entirely accurate summary. However, this is not an entirely accurate summary.

Edit: That said, I don't blame you for not going through each of the previous threads on this same subject to see what he has said and I have said previously, and it's entirely possible that what he said was in no way a reflection of what he meant, as his arguments seem to suggest. But in the larger context of this ongoing argument we've apparently been having for months, my logic was not at fault. If he had wanted to stop the argument and reach a middle ground and/or more conversational tone, I would have accepted "that isn't what I meant" much more readily than "I never said any such thing." But getting defensive and using ambiguous wording is something we both do much more readily than giving the other even a single inch in a completely pointless argument that we've had half a dozen times already.

Re-edit: Also, the logic I was aiming for was closer to the following.

One player with two accounts is better than two players with one account each: true or false.

It ended up being a lot more complicated - there was a bit of "if not B, then not A, therefore if B, then A" in there, but honestly I've gotten a headache at this point, so I'm gonna condense it down to what I was trying to say before I got dragged back into the argument for like the 349550934th time.

He claims that, on an individual basis, it is better to have an account for every possible specialization than it is to be part of a guild and/or participate in the game's market. If he is making an argument that one person with two accounts is better than two people with one account each--which he is--then he is arguing that it is better to have alt accounts than friends. He isn't arguing that you can only have one or the other, and I never claimed that he was, but if it's better for any given person to have more than one account than to have only one account, then he is necessarily claiming that your individual power is measured more by the number of accounts you have than by the number of friends you have. Ergo, alt accounts are more important than friends.

Even if he had never said a word on this subject, I feel like the fact that he bought more than a dozen accounts tells you everything you need to know about his position. If he didn't think that having alt accounts was a greater power increase than having guildmates, I would posit that he wouldn't have any alt accounts, since he already has guildmates.

The fact that I had to spend a page defending the claim that the guy in a guild who has more than a dozen accounts thinks there is profit in having multiple accounts that is not present if one simply joins a guild is what cost me my objectivity. I just don't understand how anyone can look at that argument and claim that it is a fallacy, even without the context of his previous statements.

Such edit. wow: On the second, whether you see it or not, alt accounts absolutely increase the "measurable power" of the player who owns them. Observing that a single alt account is n0t necessarily better than a friend's account certainly doesn't imply otherwise. To the contrary, it confirms that increase in power.

I also disagree with your breakdown of this statement, which is partly my own fault for only quoting the latter two sentences contained therein.

Assertion 1: Entirely in a vacuum, alt accounts increase the power of the player with alt accounts.

Assertion 2: The fact that a single alt account isn't necessarily better than a friend's primary account does not negate assertion 1.

Assertion 3: The fact that a single alt account isn't necessarily better than a friend's primary account proves assertion 1.

Since it is tantamount to nonsense, the fact that he made this argument at all tells me exactly one thing: that he believes that having more accounts is more important than having friends. If one enters this argument without the prior context of previous discussions or the knowledge that he has purchased multiple accounts even though he already has friends and guildmates, one could be forgiven in thinking that he is not asserting that alt accounts increase the power of a player MORE than having friends, but even without that context, it seems like a fairly weak claim to make. After all, if he didn't think the increase in power was larger, why would he spend hundreds of dollars on it, or even take the time to post about it?

The rest of my logic--implying that the quote I bolded here was being used to present the argument that multiple accounts are more valuable than friends--follows logically from that premise, and the axiomatic leap required to follow my logic is not large, though it is not infallible either.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BarriaKarl said:

Alt accounts give players a edge BUT not enough to be game-breaking. That is it guys thread closed...

Define what "an edge" is, followed by what constitutes "game-breaking" (or not).  Otherwise, my apologies, but your declaration sorta fell flat.

From a realistic perspective two facts stick out, regardless of my not caring for the trend of multiple-accounts-oh-rama as "a thing", to the point we've started hearing the idea in recent years you "need" to run multiple accounts to play a game "properly".:

  • ACE isn't going to adopt a position against it, therefore it's going to happen.
  • There is significant advantage to running multiple accounts and alts.  I don't see this as debatable given it is demonstrated by it "being a thing" nowadays, moreso than ever before.  In other words, if there wasn't much of an advantage to do so . . . you'd see far fewer engaging in the practice.

In the "worst case" scenarios where people are looking to actively game the system to the extent possible for profit/gain (IRL or in-game wealth) there are three core resource-development targets that are managed:  

1) An organized group of "many" players,

2) As many of those as possible running multiple accounts and alts, and

3) Development/use of tools and techniques to be used by those players, often in coordinated fashion (e.g. Seeking out and identifying exploit opportunities, hacks/unauthorized programs or macros, setting up scams, etc.)

Edited by Bramble
wording

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...