This will break the game. And no, I'm not trolling.

Where I outline that controlled RMT reduces the activity of gold farmers flooding the market with resources and creating stagflation.

Maybe you didn't go to my original post on this thread because it's a bit of a chaotic topic.

 

Just because you may play solo and never talk to another soul, doesn't mean the next guy isn't going to say ...oh look lol what a joke I can play easy mode and buy my way to legitimacy, let's go kill some newbs, or let me buy that prime piece of real estate before this guy who's working his ass off to do the same. There are a million and one reasons I could give you as to why the ability to buy in game currency as a legal means to obtain in game items, is a game killer.

I can tell you that some members of my guild likely wouldn't want to put anymore RL cash into this game, and they would become frustrated rather quickly seeing us on ez mode obtaining whatever item we might need or want with straight up China shop gold.

Don't do it Richard!

 

This certainly is a minefield.

1) Sota needs to have some kind of steady income.

2)In game inflation is a real concern. Look at UOF. Shards been around a year and already the amount of gold on the shard is ridiculous. They are having to create gold sinks with every update now. New players coming in are at a serious disadvantage compared to those who started a year ago. This can happen with any pay to win or phuedo pay to win game.

3) Parallel currencies can be a serious issue (tokens, donation coins etc). They can seriously contribute to inflation as people start selling and trading items for the parallel currency and not using the in game gold. This basically forces people who want to be competitive to purchase "tokens" with RL money or spend their entire time farming.

I think at this point it is already decided and I believe this team is smart and aware of potential problems. I would think that this was one of the first topics they would address. You don't start a business without first knowing how it's going to make money. All artistic desires and emotions aside, this is a business.

That being said, I would like to hear from the Dev team on concerns like parallel currencies, inflation, goldsinks, purchasable player advantage etc....and the biggest one, gold farming for RL cash. They better be on top of permanent bans for people selling in game cash for RL money.

If they choose to make skill or special weapons/items purchasable, I couldn't see playing the game for long.

I've donated, I'm a knight. Truthfully I would rather see a monthly fee over RL purchases but a lot of games seem to be on the F2P with "donations" wagon. But i'm happy to donate money RL money for in game cash in order to support them game as long as the pitfalls of that system have been addressed.

 

As someone who has worked on a college campus and work along side a lot of college age students and younger students as well ... the majority are not worried about P2W ... by in large what they care about is ... IS THE GAME FUN ... fun in all sorts of flavors; PvP, PvE, housing, puzzles, exploration etc etc

What will drive the younger demographic away from this game is the persistent attitude within these forums that younger players should not be allowed play this "grown up" game ...

I'm not a home owner, I can't afford it ... but I'm not here for housing - I feel that this game will be something much greater ...

 

In the long run I agree, but at pretty much the same detrimental outcome.
In the short run I simply do not see any evidence of that assertion. I would suspect the two thigs happen in parallel as long as gold farming leads to competitive prices and the resulting competition in the market (game designer vs. farmer) would ruin the game economy the same, just quicker.

 

I believe this is the case as well, yet somehow that scenario and its moral implications seem even worse in some ways. I have commented on this in detail further up, so I will not repeat myself.

 

I interact with college students on a daily basis and I would argue that many are turned off by pay to win.
The group of people I talk with might however be an odd selection, as they are pretty much all Physics, Mathematics and Computer Science students in an advanced stage of their studies.

 

I haven't got the impression that the community at large feels "younger" people shouldn't play this game. I've only been around the forums for a couple of months though.

I also can't imagine that "younger" people give two * about what people on forums think of them. I agree, they like the game they will play.

I think this topic becomes more of a hot issue to those folks who view this game as a long term investment. They did put money in and they did so with specific ideas about certain things in the game. If the dev team came out and detailed their proposed system and how they plan to address stagflation or inflation etc it would go along way to quelling a lot of concerns/fears.

Ultimately it is the people who donate/pay RL money that matter. It was their RL money that backed the game and it is their RL money that will keep the game around.

If a large number of those people have concerns, it behooves the dev team to address them.

*edited for language - Koldar

 

This is exctly what many people try to escape in a game.
If the devs want that to be part of the game, they better also provide some way to burn the lords house down and a guillotine for the market square to drag the lords too, before their character becomes one head shorter permanently
Rivers and seas to throw the tea in already exist.

 

I think you assume too much - there is a lot of road between right now and how buying in game currency through the shop will affect actual game play. Again, you took it right to two components of gaming: combat and item acquisition. There is going to be SO much more to this game than that!

Again, I'll contrast what you've said with this: "If there isn't a way for us that don't have the time others have to play, to somehow level the field when it comes to in-game income, then the game is going to be ruined! Don't do it RG!"

Sadly your opinion swings with sharpened edges both ways - can't have the cake and eat it to, I'm afraid!

Chances are, since a very great many of us will use the shop (though modern analysis would show that a handful of whales will keep the game afloat, regardless), and since the game will need some sustainability, this is pretty much an inevitable outcome.

To side with you for a moment; if the implementation (which we may not have details on for many, many months, mind) in some way results in the foreboding you predict, then we'll indeed have a problem. But I'm more optimistic; there are many viable implementations in the industry of shops that do not compromise game play, and I just don't have any reason to believe the seasoned game developers and sharp minds putting this game together will blunder with implementing it here.

Have faith!

PEACE!

 

So you admit that your own advantage is all that counts to you, even though in a multiplayer game your actions influence all other players as well?
I think I know why that attitude isn't popular

 

Woah, when did you people get so cheap? Is your primary concern earning pixel money instead of having fun?
What happened to GAMING and PLAYING? Why do you measure your success in an mmo*RPG* in the pixel gold you earn and not in the amounts of fun you've had?

Some guy telling me he powerplays all the tme and buys ingame gold, what the hell. I sure dont want to meet this person in SotA because when he's not afk botting, he probably is farming, and is a very boring person.

 

What is the issue with this? The less time you have, the more years of enjoyable gameplay you have ahead of you =)
If you just buy it, you won't be able to enjoy the process.

If the process is not enjoyable to you, why would you play it at all?

 

I'm talking about the average college student, high school as well ... if you're talking master .. well that's a different story

 

I would agree with that. My kids and their friends could care less if its free to play, pay to win, whatever. It has to be fun and have a good amount of content. We are in the App generation. Microtransactions are just a part of life whether you use them or not.

 

I never said advantage - I said my goals and enjoyment of the game are my own to manage - quite a difference from what you are suggesting!

Further, I'm curious, so please provide some detail ... what impact, specifically, does my style and manner of play, my specific goals and endeavors, have on other players? If you say for instance, "edge in PVP", please quote the final game design mechanic that supports that (otherwise straw man) argument

Patience is a virtue - waiting to see how things ACTUALLY pan out is far more reasonable than freaking out in early alpha ... can we agree on that as a common fact?

PEACE!

 

Can this topic get an 'i ban thee'?

At least until more information comes to light?

Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

The age arguments on what 'college age people want' is pretty insubstantial as everyone is arguing based on anecdotal evidence

The discussion at the moment is also not meeting at the point of contention and that is differing definitions of pay 2 win.

1. Those for it typically are not in favour of 'Pay to Win'.

Personally I believe that accessing in game wealth does not inherently make your character more powerful. You may reach the highest levels of power more quickly, but the people who spend both time and money to be 'first' I imagine would be a minority as reflected by the fact that the highest pledges currently are a minority. So the impact of power players buying currency is minimal.

To satisfy a Pay to win definition in my mind, is to sell the most powerful weapons, player perks or skills that are unobtainable through other means or a unreasonable time sink as some have given examples of.

We have no indication that the amount of gold they sell will be limitless. An exmple is in the Secret world you can buy 'Experience Points' to unlock skills. however there is a weekly limit on the amount to prevent instantly leveling and instead, just keeps players able to progress and enjoy the content at their own pace. If they instigate gold selling then there is the option to have limits that mean a player who is dedicated to playing and working the economy will still make more money, but the RMT player is able to still clip along and enjoy the game as well.

So I don't believe we have satisfied the question of Pay to Win yet. Perhaps an announcement will come down and unequivically show that player with wealth are inherently able to access greater power, but I find that unlikely given the dev teams level nature and passion for 'core' gaming.


2. The argument 'But it causes inflation'

I'm not convinced that it causes more inflation then what would occur if RMT was contained in the grey market and produced by third parties and player selling to fund their game time. Recent MMO releases like Final Fantasy XIV as well as long standing ones like WoW prove that inflation occurs and grey market RMT has a significant negative effect on game economies.

These 'themepark' MMO's solve the problem by making the most powerful weapons and items exist 'outside' of the economy. They are only obtainable through pick up, or a currency that cannot be traded and has no 'Economy'. I'd love for SOTA to not create these false economies and make items free to trade, but to do so they need to address RMT.

I remember in FFXI when the item and economy was mostly free. valuable resources and items became monopolosied by farming groups and teh average player lost access to them until they became BoP, or the 'unrestricted' version were only accessible through a trade of a mob dropped currency to enter an instance instead of the standard Gil.

Taking away grey market RMT's market is one solution they may be considering by selling gold so if you don't like this solution, how would you wish they handle Gold farmer's and gold seller's?



So in short, the discussion has two different views but right now the discussion from each side is predicated by different assmptions or values which is why there is no concession on the larger issue.

But, whether or not you agree with my assumptions, I hope you better understand why I have such assumptions and beliefs.

 

Why would you want to shut it down, friend?
Why would you request that other people be silenced?
There are plenty of other threads to watch if this one doesn't suit your tastes.

 

Personally, I have no problem if they decide they want P2W (selling gold in game). What I do have a problem with is not telling us in advance. If they want this game to be like that, they should tell people so they can decide if they're going to invest more or not. As it is, it's kept my husband & I from investing more until we know. If the majority of people really want P2W, then they will be happy playing a game that only others who want the same advantage in the game to be around. Those of us who don't want that will simply go elsewhere.

Of course, I think a game with P2W will appeal to a niche market. It's just a niche market I don't care to invest.