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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Arkade said:

It isn't the guild who is paying. It's the individual players, who each pay the same amount as any other player. How the players choose sides within the game doesn't change the fact that every player paid the same amount of money and was granted the same access and choices within the game.

If half of my guild decides they no longer want to pay the sub, that isn't a matter of "choosing sides" it is a matter of choosing how much they are willing to pay. If not paying results in a loss of training benefits, that is less loss of power than if they lose the ability to log in.

If the players in my guild only pay for 6 months of subscription per year, while the players in your guild pay for 12 months of subscription per year, your guild pays more, and can win more, as a guild and as individual players.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

If half of my guild decides they no longer want to pay the sub, that isn't a matter of "choosing sides" it is a matter of choosing how much they are willing to pay. If not paying results in a loss of training benefits, that is less loss of power than if they lose the ability to log in.

If the players in my guild only pay for 6 months of subscription per year, while the players in your guild pay for 12 months of subscription per year, your guild pays more, and can win more, as a guild and as individual players.

I can see this argument is going nowhere, so this is the last I'll say about it.

You as a member of a guild are not paying more money, regardless of how many players you have in your guild. If half your guild leaves, you are still paying the same amount and your personal access and power is unchanged. Yes, your guild is weaker, but what if those players who left continued to pay for the game? Maybe they chose a 1 year subscription and stopped playing after 6 months. They are still paying for the game, they are still in your guild, but they aren't playing. Your guild's "power" is lessened, yet there is no change in payment.

You are really reaching with this argument, and trying to draw connections that don't exist.

Share this post


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

You are really reaching with this argument, and trying to draw connections that don't exist.

That, or something is preventing you from understanding my argument.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

If I have 20 people in my guild, and only half of them are willing to pay for a subscription in a given month, whereas all 20 people in your guild are willing to pay for the subscription that month, then a required subscription gives a major advantage to your guild. You'll outnumber us 2 to 1 by virtue of the required subscription. Whereas if it was an optional subscription that granted training bonuses, they'd at least be able to log in and fight. Sure, they might miss out on some training points, but they could at least fight. You see my point?

In the context of a required sub, if you have 10 people in your guild not paying a subscription, you don't have 20 people in your guild. You have 10. That's very different than having 20 people in your guild versus 20 people in APE's guild and APE's guild winning a contest because his players were 'premiere' players and your guys were 'basic'

The binary access system, be it a sub or straight buy to play with regular expansions is essentially fair as everyone actually playing the game has the exact same rules applies to them. Everyone not paying isn't playing the game and as such doesn't really matter in a balancing context.

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
10 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

In the context of crowfall, if you have 10 people in your guild not paying a subscription, you don't have 20 people in your guild. You have 10. That's very different than having 20 people in your guild versus 20 people in APE's guild and APE's guild winning a contest because his players were 'premiere' players and your guys were 'basic'

The binary access system, be it a sub or straight buy to play with regular expansions is essentially fair as everyone actually playing the game has the exact same rules applies to them. Everyone not paying isn't playing the game and as such doesn't really matter in a balancing context.

If I have 20 players in my guild, all of whom bought the game, and paid monthly for a year, and then one month 10 of them stop paying a required subscription, my guild loses a lot of power that month. If it was an optional sub we'd lose far less power.

As for "exact same rules" that holds true for an optional sub as well. Everyone has the option of paying that sub. Just like with a required sub, everyone who pays the sub is on even footing. It's only the people who don't pay the sub that are at a disadvantage. And the disadvantage of being unable to log in is a bigger disadvantage than inferior passive training.

You have decided that if someone stops paying the sub they "don't really matter" but that is just your opinion. In my opinion, those Crows do matter. They paid in the past, and they might again. They still have accounts, passive training, vessels, and loot, and they are still members of the guild. Losing access to the game is a bigger penalty than losing a training bonus for those people. And for their guild.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

In the context of a required sub, if you have 10 people in your guild not paying a subscription, you don't have 20 people in your guild. You have 10. That's very different than having 20 people in your guild versus 20 people in APE's guild and APE's guild winning a contest because his players were 'premiere' players and your guys were 'basic'

The binary access system, be it a sub or straight buy to play with regular expansions is essentially fair as everyone actually playing the game has the exact same rules applies to them. Everyone not paying isn't playing the game and as such doesn't really matter in a balancing context.

@Jah Pope is right man.  You’re just arguing to argue at this point.  


40 minutes ago, Andius said:

W/HoA were held up as like these mystical forces of highly skilled players with legendary theorycrafters chained to a desk in some deep dungeon holding all the arcane secrets we could use to win if only we knew them.

wiDfyPp.png

Share this post


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

You have decided that if someone stops paying they sub "they don't really matter" but that is just your opinion. In my opinion, those Crows do matter. They paid in the past, and they might again. Losing access to the game is a bigger penalty than losing a training bonus.

That''s not an opinion, that is a fact. They literally quit the game. Why they quit the game doesn't matter. They have exactly as much effect on the game as my mother, who is over 60 years old and makes quilts in stead of playing video games.

When you stop playing a game you are very much no longer part of its competitive environment. Whether its because you can't afford a sub, had a kid, or literally died in real life.

I have stopped playing a ton of games with and without required subs for reasons including sub fees, college, personal relationship changes, poorly made socksty patches, and so on.

The optional sub creates an environment, quite deliberately, creates a caste system. There are some players more important than others. A binary b2p or required sub has only one caste, and that caste is "playing the game"

No one is entitled to access the game. The assumption that they are is willfully dismissing the basic fundaments of this discussion. The discussion is about which model of access results in a more equitable experience for those actually playing the game.


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
8 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

That''s not an opinion, that is a fact. They literally quit the game. Why they quit the game doesn't matter. They have exactly as much effect on the game as my mother, who is over 60 years old and makes quilts in stead of playing video games.

When you stop playing a game you are very much no longer part of its competitive environment. Whether its because you can't afford a sub, had a kid, or literally died in real life.

No, it is an opinion. They have not necessarily quit the game. They may just be taking a break, or not have enough free time during the month to justify the sub. They still have accounts, vessels, gear, passive training, etc. With an optional sub, they can still contribute to victory. They can still win. They can have a much bigger effect on the game than your mother who does not play. With a required sub they can't contribute, lose access to all of their stuff, and literally cannot win without paying additional money.

8 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

No one is entitled to access the game. The assumption that they are is willfully dismissing the basic fundaments of this discussion. The discussion is about which model of access results in a more equitable experience for those actually playing the game.

Nobody said anyone is entitled to access to the game. Straw man.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

@Jah Pope is right man.  You’re just arguing to argue at this point.  

I am indeed debating to debate. It is an academic discussion to me. As I said already, I prefer required subs. This isn't about my preference, it is about comparing the "pay to win" aspects of required versus optional subscriptions.

But no, he is not right.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

They may just be taking a break, or not have enough free time during the month to justify the sub.

Also known as "not playing the game"

 

13 minutes ago, Jah said:

Nobody said anyone is entitled to access to the game. Straw man.

Your argument is literally that they are entitled to access because they at one point in history played the game and have characters and loot, regrdless of whether or not they are using them.

 

12 minutes ago, Jah said:

I am indeed debating to debate. It is an academic discussion to me. As I said already, I prefer required subs. This isn't about my preference, it is about comparing the "pay to win" aspects of required versus optional subscriptions.

But no, he is not right.

You're positing that a chess tournament in which all participants pony up an entry fee is less fair than a chess tournament in which everyone can enter for free but those that pay a per match fee get a second queen.

One of these is obviously a "fair" competition where the rules always uniformly apply to all players. The other is a competition purposely designed to feign the appearance of fairness while creating a clear disadvantage for some of the players.

You can't be disadvantaged if you're not actually playing.

I'm glad we both agree that the more fair option is the binary one.


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
7 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Also known as "not playing the game"

Only if a required sub forces that disadvantage on them. If it is an optional sub, then not paying does not equate to not playing. Instead, the disadvantage is less severe.

7 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Your argument is literally that they are entitled to access because they at one point in history played the game and have characters and loot, regrdless of whether or not they are using them.

No, it is not. I never said anything remotely like that. I am comparing the "pay to win" advantages provided by an optional subscription with those provided by a required subscription.

7 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

You can't be disadvantaged if you're not actually playing.

Being prevented from playing can be viewed as a disadvantage to someone who would play if they weren't locked out.

 

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Being prevented from playing can be viewed as a disadvantage to someone who would play if they weren't locked out.

Simply wanting to play the game does not make you a competitor. I want to play NFL football and make 4 million dollars before I tear my ACL and develop a heavy coke habit and die on the toilet.

That doesn't make me a professional football player, a coke addict, or an elvis impersonator.

I am not prepared to meet the requirements to compete, which are "be awesome at football, know coke dealers, and own a toilet"

If the requirements to compete are "pay money" then that's that. You either pay the money or you are a literal non factor. You are not a customer nor a competitor. You don't exist in this context. You do not have a voice in this conversation.

If the requirement to compete is "exist" then you matter to competitive balance, and your voice that says "why am I a second class citizen" matters in this conversation.

Paying to PLAY is not analogous to paying for an advantage over other people.


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 minute ago, PopeUrban said:

Simply wanting to play the game does not make you a competitor.

If you buy the game, join a guild, level up, equip yourself in gear, and build a city then you ARE a competitor.

If, at the point, you stop paying an optional monthly sub, you might lose access to some sort of advantage, such as additional passive training. You remain a competitor.

If the subscription is required, and you stop paying, you lose access to everything. Even if you pay the sub again in a later month, the disadvantage inflicted upon you by the payment model may have lasting effects on your competitiveness. You couldn't keep your passive training going. You couldn't show up for a critical siege. Etc.

Of the two, losing access completely is a bigger disadvantage. People who never let the required sub lapse have an advantage over someone who periodically pays the sub and plays.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

the disadvantage inflicted upon you by the payment model

You can not be "inflicted" with a disadvantage in a competition you are literally not participating in.


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
30 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

You can not be "inflicted" with a disadvantage in a competition you are literally not participating in.

If that "disadvantage" is the reason you can't participate, and it is inflicted upon you by a required subscription, then yes, you can.

Crowfall is a longterm competition. If I miss out on passive training while I am deployed overseas, that will put me at a disadvantage when I return. Unless, of course, I pay for the advantage of maintaining a subscription even when I have little time to play. If I have just one weekend free during a month, I might like to log in for a siege, but can't quite justify paying a subscription for the month. A required subscription inflicts upon me the disadvantage of being unable to participate in that siege, even though I am very much a participant over the long term in the Eternal War of the Gods.

Take a real world example. If a professional athlete is suspended for a few games, that will be a disadvantage for him. It will hurt his stats, his standing with his team, and may have a lasting negative impact on his career. Would you say it can't inflict a disadvantage on him because, while he is suspended, he is "literally not participating"?

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Would you say it can't inflict a disadvantage on him because, while he is suspended, he is "literally not participating"?

I would say that it is not the league's responsibility to ensure his competitive ability. It is the league's job to enforce fair rules of play for those still on the field.

That professional athlete is literally not participating, and how that effects his teams competitive ability is not the responsibility of the league to fix. Its the responsibility of the team to fix and plan around. The league's job is to ensure that when players take to the field they do so playing by the same rules. The league's job is not to ensure that when your star quarterback is suspended for assault that you get a replacement QB, nor is it to hire him a lawyer so he can get arraigned faster and get back on the field. That's on you, the team's owner.

That disadvantage was not "inflicted" upon him by the league. It was inflicted by the player's own circumstances, or simply be unfortunate accident. This is a realm beyond the responsibility of the league in the same way the fate of players that stop making the agreed upon trade of money for access isn't the responsibility of a game developer. Those people have effectively "left the store" and are no longer your responsibility.

When you're running a free to play game, however, you DO have a responsibility to the people playing without subscription because they're still playing your game, on your platform, and you're still considering them your customers because you are literally trying to sell them whatever optional stuff the people better off than them have. They're still "in the store" and as such its still your responsibility to treat them like customers.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand and I know you're being contrary just to be contrary, so I'm going to TLDR this and stop here. We both agree on the preferred outcome and this has devolved in to a circle of you you orbiting the point which everyone else agrees upon just to feel the wind in your hair.

And its a lovely head of hair Jah. It really is. You're a treasure.

TLDR

A binary pay-for-access system is designed to create binary user levels. You either are or not a user of a game or specific expansion content. Thus all users are operating from the same level of status and spending additional money can not elevate their competitive profile. They are either paying to be in the game, or not in the game. How you measure up to other players is a direct result of your actions and whether or not you can access the game. You are participating in a system designed to be fair that is designed to offer a player the opportunity to make a simple trade of money for video game until they don't want to play the video game any more.

A tiered system is designed to create tiered user levels. Your status level and the status levels of those around you are assigned based upon your financial investment. All users are not operating from the same level of status by design, as the goal of said system is to deliberately engender a sense of annoyance and disadvantage in those of lower status. You are deliberately either stronger, weaker, or equivalent with other players regardless of your actions or ability to access the game by design. You are participating in a system DESIGNED to be unfair in order to annoy people with its unfairness until the spend money out of pure frustration.

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
8 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I would say that it is not the league's responsibility to ensure his competitive ability. It is the league's job to enforce fair rules of play for those still on the field.

That professional athlete is literally not participating, and how that effects his teams competitive ability is not the responsibility of the league to fix. Its the responsibility of the team to fix and plan around. The league's job is to ensure that when players take to the field they do so playing by the same rules. The league's job is not to ensure that when your star quarterback is suspended for assault that you get a replacement QB, nor is it to hire him a lawyer so he can get arraigned faster and get back on the field. That's on you, the team's owner.

That disadvantage was not "inflicted" upon him by the league. It was inflicted by the player's own circumstances, or simply be unfortunate accident. This is a realm beyond the responsibility of the league in the same way the fate of players that stop making the agreed upon trade of money for access isn't the responsibility of a game developer. Those people have effectively "left the store" and are no longer your responsibility.

I wasn't talking about who is responsible for the disadvantage, or who is to blame. I was talking about whether a temporary suspension can impose a disadvantage over a longer term. Assigning blame is irrelevant. You missed the point.

It's not about why an athlete has to miss some games, or why a Crowfall player might skip a month of subscription, its about whether that suspension creates a disadvantage.

A required subscription for Crowfall would create numerous tiers of player. Someone who pays the subscription every month would have an advantage over someone who pays it every other month. Both are Crowfall players in the long term, so your argument that they can't be at a disadvantage because they are "literally not participating" doesn't apply. The more months of subscription you pay for, the more benefit you get. It might even be worth paying for months when you couldn't play, just to buy that advantage. If you wanted to maximize your advantage, you would pay the monthly subscription every month indefinitely, just as you would with an optional subscription that offered an advantage.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, people that play the game twice as much would have an advantage.

How that seems unfair to you still baffles me.

I'm not "suspended" from Netflix if I choose to cancel my account. That's on me, not Netflix.

 

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
38 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

Yes, people that play the game twice as much would have an advantage.

How that seems unfair to you still baffles me.

We aren't talking about advantages accrued from playing more, we are talking about advantages from paying more.

38 minutes ago, PopeUrban said:

I'm not "suspended" from Netflix if I choose to cancel my account. That's on me, not Netflix.

Again, you've missed the point. It's not about assigning blame for losing access. It is about whether losing access imposes a disadvantage.


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...