99 replies to this topic

[Creed Buhallin]

Psyche, on 22 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

neither of them even have an offline Demo.

For WoT thats pretty bad - normally a company would Want to show their product to perspective shoppers/downloaders...unless of course they can't hide the Pay2Win scam.

So what would you typically expect out of a demo? The chance to download the game, play it for free? How many maps or game types would you expect a demo to include? Because honestly, this seems a very strange complaint to me. Free to play games are the ultimate demos - you can download the entire game, play it as much as you want, and even keep your progress.

And while I know people will come out of the woodwork to scream about this, WoT honestly isn't as bad on the P2W front as people gripe on it for. Yes, there are some notable poor choices, mainly with the matchmaking on certain premium tanks. But outside of clan wars, I rarely see anyone using gold ammo - I don't know anyone at all personally who does. In clan wars it's mostly just the price of being competitive. You can easily see that as a subscription fee, and one that's subsidized by doing well in the clan war. It's not P2W, it's the price to compete.

If you look at something like gold ammo in isolation, yes, it feels like a bad idea. The actual practical impact on the game is honestly pretty minimal - just like the actual practical impact of buying accelerated progress is minimal. But the internet does love exploding into nerdrage without worrying about practicality, so a bunch of people who've probably never played it rage about how horrible they are.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Fluffy Kitten, on 22 June 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

the whiners will whine about everything.

make them play MMO pong, and they will still complain about something.
"pay to win cause his line is whiter"

whatever.

talk about uncreative lol. No, that's not how pay to win pong would look like

This is how pay to win pong would look like



Player 1: get good scrub

Player 2: big paddle pay to win bullshit

Player 1: quit being entitled [REDACTED], maybe if you worked at mcdonalds like I do you'd be able to afford a bigger paddle.


However, I do agree there are people you can never please, whose heads are so far up their own egos they refuse to see reason or logic even when you articulate detailed facts with citations into their general direction. For these people it's more about attention than solving problems. The same thing applies on the other end too though, people with lots of money and little self confidence that blow it all on frivelous things to make them feel superior to others, and will gladly snob at anybody who doesnt meet their standards, which since their egos are huge to shield their insecurity- is everybody.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 June 2012 - 02:04 PM.

[Name48928]

Creed Buhallin, on 22 June 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

You and I both play the game. We're moderately equally skilled. We've both played for 30 hours - but I paid for premium the entire time, and you didn't. I now have 45 hours worth of money and experience, which gives me a combat advantage. Should we meet, my money means I trounce you, because the XP and money I gained by paying gives me an advantage. I have, literally, paid to win.

I understand what you are saying. There's another way to look at it though:

You and I both play the game and we're equally skilled. You've played for 30 hours this week, but because of time contraints I've only played 20 hours. But, during those 20 hours, I was paying to play premium. So at the end of the week, we're at relatively the same level. Same scenario applies for people arriving late to the game compared to non-paying long-term players.

But yes, when a player plays a lot for a long time under a premium account, their relative level of equipment will be higher than everyone else.

The distinction I make is this: I play the game without buying premium ammunition. You come along and pay for auto-seeking missiles that must be bought with cash. My attacks miss 50% of the time for moderate damage. Yours always hit for maximum damage. That is what is generally considered to be "pay to win".

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

mu, on 22 June 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

I bought Chromehounds the week before they took the servers down. Sigh.

Yes this is the other proble,. Chromehounds being dead and WoT not yet dead

[akito]

I miss chromehounds. That game was awesome, MWO is what I always thought of when i played Chromehounds. I don't care about comparisons, I just care that MWO is made as good a game as possible.

[RaithSpartan]

Creed Buhallin, on 22 June 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

The standard argument is that I didn't really pay to win that match, because you could have just worked for 45 hours to achieve the same, so it's not "paying to win". IMHO, that's bollocks - money becomes a power differentiator between two players who are in all other ways equal. That's P2W.

i thnk your wrong. firstly its a team based game so if youve managed to get yourself a badass mech with lots of exp and creds and your mate has only a crappy mech because he hasnt made as much cred as you since your on premium account the matchmaking system will balance things out by giving his team a similar stye mech to yours. Your assuming if you thought 1v1 all the time then yes youd prob win but that isnt what mwo is about. Money only allows you to progress faster through the mechs

[Twisted Power]

I hadn't even heard of WoT before this forum. The only FPS I ever played was MW1-4 and Counterstrike from 2001. Everybody does say WoT a lot and I had to google it to know wth they were talking about.

[Blunty]

the people complaining WoT is pay 2 win are quite obviously the people that havent managed to brake noob status

a team with superiour communications , that knows the role of their tanks , that understands every last piece of cover will overcome a team that thinks gold ammo will win the day alone

the same will be true for MWO , and in any team game thought out the known universe

[Creed Buhallin]

MinionJoe, on 22 June 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

The distinction I make is this: I play the game without buying premium ammunition. You come along and pay for auto-seeking missiles that must be bought with cash. My attacks miss 50% of the time for moderate damage. Yours always hit for maximum damage. That is what is generally considered to be "pay to win".

Oh, I understand what is "generally considered" pay to win I just think it's a meaningless distinction. If those same auto-seeking missiles are purchasable by normal means but I get there in 2/3 the time you do, the ends result is exactly the same. I have an advantage over you which came about because I spent money that you didn't.

Either way, one player is paying for a competitive advantage the other doesn't have. Players don't like that in theory, so companies came up with this convenient fiction that somehow if you're only paying for accelerated progress, it's not an advantage - which is pretty much BS But for whatever reason, people have accepted it, probably because they really had no choice.

The cognitive dissonance on this is pretty deep, honestly. EVE Online is one of the greatest "No P2W!!!" strongholds in all of gaming, with the mere speculation of such things driving them into a frenzy. Yet it's also a game where running multiple accounts is a HUGE advantage in many situations. If I pay to run 3 accounts while mining, and you only pay for one, I have a distinct advantage over you because I'm paying more. But that doesn't annoy them. Suggest selling ships directly for cash, and the forums will explode in rage - but sell PLEX for enough ISK to buy an account and an ubership from someone, and that's perfectly fine.

Simple fact is that the line for what constitutes "pay to win" is pretty arbitrary, and has more to do with player ego than anything else.

[Name48928]

Blunty, on 22 June 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

the people complaining WoT is pay 2 win are quite obviously the people that havent managed to brake noob status

a team with superiour communications , that knows the role of their tanks , that understands every last piece of cover will overcome a team that thinks gold ammo will win the day alone

the same will be true for MWO , and in any team game thought out the known universe

And a team with good communications, knowledge of their roles, and gold ammo will always win against teams that only have good communications and understanding of roles.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Blunty, on 22 June 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

the people complaining WoT is pay 2 win are quite obviously the people that havent managed to brake noob status

a team with superiour communications , that knows the role of their tanks , that understands every last piece of cover will overcome a team that thinks gold ammo will win the day alone

the same will be true for MWO , and in any team game thought out the known universe

pitch two identical and experienced teams against each other on a map they are both very experienced with, with the exception of only one team being allowed to use gold rounds and gold consumables and then make that statement. The fact that you are this ignorant, or naive, and will write people like me off as noobs is quite hilarious. do you even play world of tanks? are you in a clan? do you even hold any decent land on the map under your own efforts? if not then you don't know anything and are just running your mouth for attention. good day.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 June 2012 - 02:12 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Ok... while chromehounds wasn't F2P [you had to buy the game disk and have Xbox live] It DOES share alot in common with what MWO is attempting to accomplish.

Chromehounds also had DLC [content you bought with microsoft points] that was exclusive to DLC downloaders, however could be used against anyone [closest allagory would be WoT's 'gold ammo']

In chromehounds you built your mech from various parts, engine, cockpit, legs, weapons, internals. In mechwarrior you have defult chassis.

Chromehounds "metagame" was an ongoing war, it had persistant stats, and an indepth research and devlopment system for new technology [which was quickly ended after the first few wars, thanks SEGA] Once new technology was devloped, it was eventually issued to everyone. It also had ingame currency as well as the ability to buy DLC with MSPoints. [no different really than Mech Credits or 'gold']

Perhaps, for you WoT players, that are soo keen on talking about this from a WoT prospective, maybe you should look into what Chromehounds offered, instead of going 'pfft it was a console game, it was a kids game' The fact of the matter was, most of the players of Chromehounds were in the 25-40 age range... [I know from my Mec corp I was in] and were very team oriented [as the meta game FORCED you to play on a team, and not just randomly, you had to JOIN a mercernary corp{or start your own} to really experience the metagame, and you could move from corps to corps, there were merc crops dedicated to training new players.]

What it comes down to, is the fact that I've played both WoT and CH... and Chromehounds is the closest thing we have to what MWO is attempting to accomplish. So maybe you guys SHOULD do a little research into what chromehounds was about.



Take a look at this, it gives you a basic idea, and yeah, some of the combat [especially single player stuff and vs AI stuff] was stale, but hell, it was the best experience we could get on the X-box at the time...

[Twisted Power]

Well if I had no job I would totally grind the F2P part of the game. But If could work one extra hour at work, use that money from that hours wages and get an item that takes 20 hours to grind. Then why would I ever do anything else?

Grinding in games or anything in life is always more advantageous to the people who have more time than me. My money is evening out the playing field with the guy who can play 10 hours a day (Jelous of that guy). The only people who are at a disadvantage are the ones who have no time or money. These people would not have the advantage in any leveling game so who cares cause that is not fixable.

Edited by Twisted Power, 22 June 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[Blunty]

not really - i have seen whole teams of IS tanks get flattened by batchats , its about style and you cant buy that

[Name48928]

Creed Buhallin, on 22 June 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Either way, one player is paying for a competitive advantage the other doesn't have. Players don't like that in theory, so companies came up with this convenient fiction that somehow if you're only paying for accelerated progress, it's not an advantage -

Blast. Now I have to go analyze what I think I know about F2P and weed out the corporate propoganda!

Not to support the companies on this, but perhaps another distinction is that gold ammo is an immediate advantage while multipliers still require time and effort (albeit less time and effort) on the part of the player?

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Twisted Power, on 22 June 2012 - 02:12 PM, said:

Well if I had no job I would totally grind the F2P part of the game. But If could work one extra at work, use that money from that hours wages and get an item that takes 20 hours to grind. Then why would I ever do anything else?

Grinding in games or anything in life is always more advantageous to the people who have more time than me. My money is evening out the playing field with the guy who can play 10 hours a day (Jelous of that guy). The only people who are at a disadvantage are the ones who have no time or money.

well, aside from the fact all mechs can use the same weapons, and there is no real tech tree per say, just credits and individual skill trees for mech modules, technically you could do just as well in the mech you pick to begin with as something you get a year down the road in the same weight class. as far as I understand the time vs money model is going to work very well here, and I find that very attractive in a game when there aren't progression trees like world of tanks.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 June 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Saevus]

MinionJoe, on 22 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Only to the extent that they are both F2P. Anything beyond that is pure speculation.

Other than the offering of Founder packs, we know nothing about what business model PGI has chosen for MWO.

They have picked the use of "premium time" instead of a true subscription, and they are going to offer mechs to be bought with real money. There are also hangar spots to buy. I have a bet on some of those mechs increasing your money per battle similar to the already implemented "founders mechs". (even with that bit of speculation thrown out, the models appear similar) If that isn't similar to the WoT model, slap me silly and call me sally. So far as I can see, they took a good model for a game and removed the stupid "gold ammo". If they can make Light mechs feel useful in a high tier match (human nature tells me they will have trouble, though the mechanics look solid so far), I'd say they have a good shot at taking all the bad parts of WoT out, focus us in on the good parts and then give us giant robots with lasers. Solid all around.

[Twisted Power]

Battlecruiser, on 22 June 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

well, aside from the fact all mechs can use the same weapons, and there is no real tech tree per say, just credits and individual skill trees for mech modules, technically you could do just as well in the mech you pick to begin with as something you get a year down the road in the same weight class. as far as I understand the time vs money model is going to work very well here, and I find that very attractive in a game when there aren't progression trees like world of tanks.

Yea but I am a collect them all (POKEMON lol had to) kinda guy. I am going to want everything so that I can play w/e I want. I am sure it will take some serious time to do all that. So I can just buy most of them. Then use the cash accumulated from playing to buy any new ones in the future and never spend anymore money. Kinda what I did in LoL, bought all the champs that were out a few year ago and then spend all the point i got from playing to buy all the new champs that came out one at a time.

[Creed Buhallin]

MinionJoe, on 22 June 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Not to support the companies on this, but perhaps another distinction is that gold ammo is an immediate advantage while multipliers still require time and effort (albeit less time and effort) on the part of the player?

You're correct, but this is a difference only in degree, not substance.

The one actually meaningful difference I see is when the ONLY way to acquire a certain advantage is through money. This was the case with the Type 59 - the tank itself wasn't necessarily any better than other tricked-out T8s, but it has a more advantageous matchmaking bracket. That's not something a player can get no matter how much time they put in. But even then, it depends on the situation. A Panzer IV facing a King Tiger is hosed no matter how much the PzIV has spent on gold ammo.

Even if we grant that as an actual difference where you can draw the line, I don't think it takes anything below that line out of the "pay to win" category. Unless what you're buying is PURELY cosmetic, you're paying for an advantage over another player who has put in equal time or effort. I just think that drawing some line somewhere and saying "If you paid for THIS advantage, you're a paying-to-win loser!" while also saying "If you paid for THAT advantage, it's only accelerating your progress so it's fine" is a very arbitrary distinction. It's fine to have - it's all personal - but using it to bash one game as a P2W abomination for having THIS advantage while heaping love on another game as teh awesumest because it only provides THAT advantage is problematic.

I also find it pretty telling that whenever you hear companies describe their "not P2W" schemes, the sample case you get is "I have 30 hours a week, you have 20, so you can pay to keep up and that's good." It's not often you hear them address how equal players are affected when one pays and one doesn't

Edited by Creed Buhallin, 22 June 2012 - 02:34 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Twisted Power, on 22 June 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Yea but I am a collect them all (POKEMON lol had to) kinda guy. I am going to want everything so that I can play w/e I want. I am sure it will take some serious time to do all that. So I can just buy most of them. Then use the cash accumulated from playing to buy any new ones in the future and never spend anymore money. Kinda what I did in LoL, bought all the champs that were out a few year ago and then spend all the point i got from playing to buy all the new champs that came out one at a time.

this is where they will make most of there money and this is a fabulous thing (no ****). So long as they do not put a dollar sign gateway to the competitive scene because this will stunt community growth(having to buy special ammunition and equipment because it's better- as an incentive to get you to spend real money will drive off a lot of budding competitive players as well as many experienced ones looking for a large field of competition.)

the major hook on time intensive games is not nickel and diming people to compete, but to get people to stay here long enough that their time investments make it difficult for them to leave. Once this happens they will continue to support their game because they 1. enjoy their game and 2. Don't want it to die.

the big key here is enjoyment, enough enjoyment to keep people from re-evaluating whether they're wasting their time in a negative way or not. that is how you hook long term customers. If you make people miserable enough sooner or later they'll burn some bridges out of the sake of never getting enjoyment. after all who wants to spend their free time miserable, there's a thing called marriage for that.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 22 June 2012 - 02:38 PM.