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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, calidor said:

Campaigns are going to have to have population caps.  So likely will zones within campaigns.  What if VIP put you at the front of the line for that access?

That was one of the intended perks for VIP from the beginning. I assume it's still part of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, some good options for VIP might be...

1. EK cosmetics and "VIP included" aspects of EKs that must be purchased ala carte otherwise (larger parcel max for example)

2. Monthly real money shop currency bonus with VIP only sales, deals, and even freebies.

3. Veteran rewards.  Free players could have these, too, but VIP would unlock additional rewards.  Like, a 3 month reward might give you 5 extra Vault slots, but if you're VIP you get 6, a 6 month reward might be a cosmetic helm but being VIP gives you the whole set.

4. Extra inventory space, one row (maybe two?).  In a full inventory loot PvP game, this comes with risk.  The convenience factor is you take 5-15 minutes recall and walk back a bit less often.  This may allow players to also mule a bit more, but they won't be able to import/export more, and with guild banks eventually happening I see this as a relatively minor thing.  Pay for convenience for the small stuff is a reasonable compromise.

5. Faster vessel leveling.  With the pending improvements (sacrificing a vessel to gain xp in one, overflowing xp gains to next level from sacrifices) and the ease of leveling we already have this would be a very appropriate convenience feature to VIP given this game isn't won by out-leveling (or even to a point out-gearing) your enemy but out-playing them with comp, game knowledge, and smart calls.

6. Increased character slots where the default is, like, two.  More can be purchased

7. Higher passive training cap.  If non-VIP get, say 3 or 5 days worth of daily points before capping, VIP could be 30 days.  Alternatively, or in addition, auto-training where I can decide what gets points and at what point I want it to allocate points to another passive.  If I know I intend to go straight through to a particular node and max each one on the path, I can just set auto-training.

8. Campaign hopping.  VIP can freely move vessels and their equipped gear between a "Main" campaign, Eternal Kingdoms, God's Reach, and "Alt" campaigns.  They cannot equip or unequip anything while on anything other their Main campaign, but they can now freely move between worlds.  Inventory would have to be banked first.  This avoids exploitation of "free" imports and exports or exploiting overflow.

9. VIP players, up to, say, 50 in total, take up reserved VIP slots, allowing VIP to expand max guild size.  Basically, your first 50 VIP players would be "free" player slots from the perspective of the guild itself.

10. VIP only merchant stall slots in temples and free cities.  This would NOT replace existing slots, there would simply be extra slots only a VIP player can utilize.  This would expand market places while also ensuring VIP have a few extra opportunities to make a stall so it would be a win-win.  They should be interspersed or be their own section that isn't given special treatment to convenience of location, but they would be more clearly marked.  Upkeep could also be cheaper for VIP (gold is easy enough to grind out I doubt this would matter much) or similar convenience factors.

11. Priority access at times of population cap outs.

12. VIP Only cosmetics simply from being VIP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Deioth said:

12. VIP Only cosmetics simply from being VIP.

They could do a cosmetic like the mugs we got from TEST server - a different mug (or whatever cosmetic item) each month. Doesn't impact pvp but is a fun way to customize your character look.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood all the critics about the old vip (3 talents tree trainning) it's not pay to win at all because u just have on bigger horizontal progression.
It's cheeper to take two non-vip account and have 4 talents tree trainning ! I thought on the contrary it was a good idea for many reasons .

And now after the tears of the community at that time, we are wondering what they can do which is non P2W and enough interested to be paid...
Really sometimes people like to complicate simple things....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, royo said:

I never understood all the critics about the old vip (3 talents tree trainning) it's not pay to win at all because u just have on bigger horizontal progression.
It's cheeper to take two non-vip account and have 4 talents tree trainning ! I thought on the contrary it was a good idea for many reasons .

And now after the tears of the community at that time, we are wondering what they can do which is non P2W and enough interested to be paid...
Really sometimes people like to complicate simple things....

Depends on what your definition of P2W is. For me it is more about buying potential power, which increased training options provides. Being able to train multiple Archetypes (old system) or multiple crafts at a time is pretty handy in such a game. Decreases the need of player dependence (or alt accounts).

It wasn't the worst, but it does provide paying players more potential. Having more on one account is usually a benefit vs managing multiple accounts, not that someone couldn't have multiple accounts with VIP as well.

This is the problem with optional subs as a whole, why will enough players pay for fluff if it doesn't do anything? Especially in a game like this? IMO it is better to be a required sub or design around a heavy cosmetic shop. Beyond that it almost always results in selling some form of advantage.

Share this post


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

Depends on what your definition of P2W is. For me it is more about buying potential power, which increased training options provides. Being able to train multiple Archetypes (old system) or multiple crafts at a time is pretty handy in such a game. Decreases the need of player dependence (or alt accounts).

It wasn't the worst, but it does provide paying players more potential. Having more on one account is usually a benefit vs managing multiple accounts, not that someone couldn't have multiple accounts with VIP as well.

This is the problem with optional subs as a whole, why will enough players pay for fluff if it doesn't do anything? Especially in a game like this? IMO it is better to be a required sub or design around a heavy cosmetic shop. Beyond that it almost always results in selling some form of advantage.

Yes for me p2w means be stronger/better than an other player in one thing and that's why if u can train 3 talent trees in the same time it's not a problem for me, because u never be better in each tree than someone who train 2 of these tree.
 

We have  differents opinions but it's life, aniway i dont think dev will come back on this point unfortunately...

Share this post


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

Yes for me p2w means be stronger/better than an other player in one thing and that's why if u can train 3 talent trees in the same time it's not a problem for me, because u never be better in each tree than someone who train 2 of these tree.

If I train A+B and you train A+B+C then you are better at C. If I do A+C then you are better at B and so on. This is being stronger/better than an other player in one thing completely based on money and not skill/effort.

While you can't do everything at once, you can do one thing then swap to another then another and having more trained always this to happen more efficiently. I can't just swap to training something else and have it on par instantly.

Having combat+harvesting+crafting trained is very useful in such a game vs just combat+harvesting or harvesting+crafting or insert any possibility. Many will likely have alt accounts for this reason and while unavoidable, it does show the weakness of passive training and paying more being beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, APE said:

If I train A+B and you train A+B+C then you are better at C. If I do A+C then you are better at B and so on. This is being stronger/better than an other player in one thing completely based on money and not skill/effort.

While you can't do everything at once, you can do one thing then swap to another then another and having more trained always this to happen more efficiently. I can't just swap to training something else and have it on par instantly.

Having combat+harvesting+crafting trained is very useful in such a game vs just combat+harvesting or harvesting+crafting or insert any possibility. Many will likely have alt accounts for this reason and while unavoidable, it does show the weakness of passive training and paying more being beneficial.

Yes but if i have 2 accounts after 4 months it's cheeper than one vip and i can train A+B+C+(A/B or C) so after only 4 months 2 accounts is more p2w than 1vip .

And as u said many ppl will have alt account u cant do nothing against that but u can offer something more pleasant for ppl who just play with one account and be competitive against someone with 2 for example.  

Anyway  we have two differents pow and i'm sure we cannot change here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that buy the game have a huge advantage over people that do not buy the game.  That is the ultimate P2W

 

Seriously.  The game will die without funding that continues post launch.  If we get stuck quibbling that a sub for a measly few bucks a month gives someone a slight edge at some aspects of the game we are doomed.  On a P2W scale of 1-100 the original proposal was a 5... sure it was an advantage but in the grand scheme of things fairly low impact.

 

 

Share this post


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

People that buy the game have a huge advantage over people that do not buy the game.  That is the ultimate P2W

Seriously.  The game will die without funding that continues post launch.  If we get stuck quibbling that a sub for a measly few bucks a month gives someone a slight edge at some aspects of the game we are doomed.  On a P2W scale of 1-100 the original proposal was a 5... sure it was an advantage but in the grand scheme of things fairly low impact.

Pro and con to everything. Anyone's guess how many people will pay or not and play or not with any payment model. ACE should of had this planned out from the start, not something they'd figure out years into development.

If given the choice between a game with a required sub and no cash shop, required sub and cosmetic shop, or optional sub but potential power for sale, I'll go for either of the first two if the games are equal it quality.

Grand scheme of things I can take my money and time anywhere, companies have to earn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alts are more p2w than the old vip. You get x2 imports / exports / bank spaces / training ect. If they were super concerned about p2w why allow alt spam and gut vip. 

Edited by Marth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2020 at 1:01 PM, VaMei said:

I've always been a fan of EvE's Plex system. Eve may be F2P, but without a subscription you only get limited access to the game. Players can subscribe to get full access, or players can use RL money to buy a tradeable token that can be redeemed for a month of full access. Players with more money than time can buy Plex and trade them for anything of value in the game, while players with more time than money can farm goods to trade for Plex to cover their premium game time.

It's a win/win for players on both sides, and because it's filtered through the player economy it's self balancing. When few players are buying Plex, they can demand a premium on the market. When tons of players want to buy their toys with rl cash, they're going to get less bang for their buck.

PLEX is literally a pay to win system, designed to be a pay to win system, in a very lossy economy. The current iteration utilizes a free to play model that is best described as a feature limited trial.

PLEX is the definition of pay to win, and the EVE community embraced this a long time ago before the free to play option existed.

Either you PLEX yourself and your alts, or you're a serf to people who control infrastructure, intelligence, and transportation vital to the economic and military metagame.

EVE never has and still does not have any sort of equity between people who pay for subs and those that do not because that was never the goal of the PLEX system. The goal of the PLEX system was to sell more subs, and the goal of the current free to play model is still to sell more subs.

"You can earn it ingame because you can buy cash shop items from other players" is not a system of equity and fairness. It is deliberately designed to create a system of lords and serfs by directly encouraging lords to overspend for a larger advantage than would have been possible in a system where that expenditure could not be traded directly for labor. Its the difference between having two accounts which I need to use, and having unlimited labor at my fingertips for the cost of as much money as I'm willing to dump in to the game.

It's not just "pay to win", but is quite literally "subsidize all ingame labor with real world money" which is far, far more disruptive to the design of an MMO economy and is purpose designed to create and enable uncle bob while the development team cashes fat checks. This system has created an economy in EVE where nearly any serious business venture in the sandbox begins with "trade some PLEX" and where the foundational unit of currency that controls the value interchange of all goods and services is PLEX.

Just because you can steal it from idiots, or become someone else's wage slave to earn your subscription doesn't make it a good system. It is a deliberately unequal system deliberately designed to add stakes and tension to the economy, not a system designed to make the game accessible and fair to varying real world cash investments.

"Trading money for time" is the biggest propaganda line that this industry has spewed in the last 20 years. You're not trading money for time. You're deliberately creating an ingame economy in which player's time is worthless to your game, and only their money is valuable. Where two hours of real life cash is more important to your game design than 40 hours of ingame play. You're creating a system to deliberately enable the exploitation of people with less real money by people with more real money.

Call me crazy, but I think when people sit down to play an MMO the value of their gameplay should be equal to their time, effort, and skill spent playing the video game. I think if you've designed a game in which throwing extra money is preferable to playing the game, you're a poorly made socksty game designer. You might be a great businessperson but you've deliberately designed a game to be a thing people will pay someone else actual money to play for them.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

 

PLEX is the definition of pay to win, and the EVE community embraced this a long time ago before the free to play option existed.

Either you PLEX yourself and your alts, or you're a serf to people who control infrastructure, intelligence, and transportation vital to the economic and military metagame.

 

Arguably a required monthly subscription is even more pay to win. At least in EVE you can do something without paying. With a required sub you can't do anything at all without paying.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Arguably a required monthly subscription is even more pay to win. At least in EVE you can do something without paying. With a required sub you can't do anything at all without paying.

Debatable. The addition of the F2P system had the end effect of creating a dedicated serf class wholly dependant on subscribers. Sure you can do SOMETHING and its FREE but its training limitations were deliberately designed to not allow you to do anything important or meaningful.

This works for EVE because EVE's economy was already designed around this paradigm with the original introduction of PLEX. By further commoditizing PLEX in to an actual currency, rather than discreet chunks of time and adding more granular skill point trades through its transaction they deliberately increased the value of having liquid PLEX.

EVE is deliberately an economy based upon real world dollar value of ingame commodities and has been for a long time.

So yeah, I mean you can play for free if you want to be a scrub, and being a scrub is designed to suck so you pay up. That doesn't seem to be the goal for CF, as we seem to want anyone who buys an account to stand on roughly equal footing within the confines of a campaign.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


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

EVE never has and still does not have any sort of equity between people who pay for subs and those that do not because that was never the goal of the PLEX system. The goal of the PLEX system was to sell more subs, and the goal of the current free to play model is still to sell more subs.

I was a long term subscriber with 3 accounts long before plex. My game time was split between ops in null-sec and amassing great piles of isk that I could roll around in.

When Plex was introduced I started playing for free. I didn't become some serf slaving away in the mines for my game time, because finding better ways to earn honest isk was what I enjoyed doing before there was any real reason for me to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jah said:

Arguably a required monthly subscription is even more pay to win. At least in EVE you can do something without paying. With a required sub you can't do anything at all without paying.

Wouldn't a required sub be pay to play, but can't tell if you are serious or not.

PLEX and other optional subs give paying players more then just access. Typically making the game easier, faster, more rewarding, and likely make the individual better in some way. If any of that actually helps someone "win" is unknown, but it probably doesn't hurt.

I'd much rather have a required sub where everyone is provided the same experience vs optional sub/store that dishes out content, QoL, and perks for those that pay more. Unless the store is 100% cosmetic based and provides no game impact beyond making my eyes bleed due to over the top skins.

Having paid tiers of player experiences is okay in a PVE based game or one where PVP is throw away arenas and battlegrounds.

For something like Crowfall being sold as a PVP game where long term choices matters, there are winners & losers, and now being hyped as a more strategic game then EVE, cash should have little to no impact once you buy the game.

Regardless of how it ends up, I just hope ACE markets properly and doesn't go by the "buy once play forever" line if it is actually "buy once, play forever (but you better pay that monthly sub and buy XYZ from the store or you will suck)." People might be suckered in, but that is a sure way to see a massive revolt and loss in numbers once it is figured out. Then F2P and even more store goodies are too follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, muthax said:

The only good reason for a required sub is gating gold sellers

Yet sub games still have gold sellers so I don't see it actually helping. If an individual or company is planning to make a profit from "gold" selling, the small monthly sub probably isn't going to hold them back.

A required sub does however bring in steady revenue but few games are large enough or good enough to run this way only. Most need at least a cosmetic/perk store to pick up the slack and put profits high enough to make investors happy.

Camelot Unchained and Ashes of Creation are both going the sub route and hope it works for them. If either ends up being good enough for me, I'll pay the sub no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, it's a plague that is hard to fight but if they have to pay a monthly fee and then the account gets banned, they'll have to buy a new copy and sub. Doesn't stop the plague but at least it's a bit of a stopper

Share this post


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

Wouldn't a required sub be pay to play, but can't tell if you are serious or not.

I think it is interesting that a required sub, where you literally cannot win without paying, is considered less 'pay to win' than an optional sub, where you can win without paying.


IhhQKY6.gif

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...