| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Remeus Reinheart
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
7
   |
Posted - 2012.07.01 14:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
first and foremost - get rid of the pay to win. Items that give an obvious advantage. Pay to win is wrong. Make AUR items cosmetically different only. Also the only repair module for vehicles seems to be AUR only. I hope that's just for the beta.
Second - To generate extra revenue allow corporations, in exchange for a subscription fee, to run corp/alliance only servers to act as "training grounds". As long as the subscription isn't ridiculously over-priced I think you may be surprised at the amount of corporations/clans that would be willing to pay for that sort of thing. As far as the EVE universe could go these could be based in high-sec, or, at the corporations discretion, low-sec, so that EVE players in the same alliance/corp can practise orbital bombardment procedures also.
|
Ender Storm
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 16:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
I dount think this game is pay to win, all aur items are on par with upgraded versions of ISK equipment.
That said, I as a casual felt the progression after the update was quite slow. I could not advande my character much. Not sure if its a bug with skills or if the boost they had on before was off.
If so, they should have left the bonus on, especially now that we are getting 1 weekend only testers and thats too little time to evolve a character, wich might let a sour taste in these 1 time only testers perhaps making them not wanting to get the game afterwards. |
Akbal Balam
Paratus Allied Covert Engineering Research
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 16:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
The idea of a seperate subscription server sounds good. I would consider paying a small fee to run private training ops at a corporate/alliance level. Perhaps they could be paid for with ISK or AUR?
|
Milk Supreme
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 17:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
I like the current business model with different tiers of weapons.
What I don't like is how cheap the higher tier weapons are. I personally think Prototype gear should cost a LOT more expensive. Yes their advantage is only a little more, but it should scale exponentially.
eg. Omen -> Navy Omen -> Zealot |
SuperKing BigNuts
Trinity Council
Test Alliance Please Ignore
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 17:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
aurum weapons either reduce 500k worth of grinding getting weapon skill 5s or reduced fitting reqs for anything worth the aurum.
you might be able to fit more loot on a suit with full aurum sets bu you can do that with good skills and experienced fitting practices.
i was in the top 50 on the leaderboards lastnight as one of the first 50 to reach 1k kills, ive used militia gear, and under 2m worth of isk purchased gear to get to this point. 5.1m sp 7.8m isk. i have a 2.48 KDR using militia gear and you think this game is pay to win, ive taken down players with proto suits and rifles with militia gear, may take a couple tries but i make a point to cause 4 or 5 deaths per match with my militia rifle just to add insult to injury, |
RoBoJerk
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 17:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
The business model is fine, pretty much the best one I've ever seen for a f2p game. It's not p2w, only pay to have an advantage that you could get just as easily by spending time grinding your skills up. It's not like they have some awesome guns you buy for $20you each that lock on to players and kill with one shot. They're just versions of the upgraded guns that you can use before training your skills up. |
Renzo Kuken
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
369
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 17:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Remeus Reinheart wrote:first and foremost - get rid of the pay to win. Items that give an obvious advantage. Pay to win is wrong. Make AUR items cosmetically different only. Also the only repair module for vehicles seems to be AUR only. I hope that's just for the beta.
Second - To generate extra revenue allow corporations, in exchange for a subscription fee, to run corp/alliance only servers to act as "training grounds". As long as the subscription isn't ridiculously over-priced I think you may be surprised at the amount of corporations/clans that would be willing to pay for that sort of thing. As far as the EVE universe could go these could be based in high-sec, or, at the corporations discretion, low-sec, so that EVE players in the same alliance/corp can practise orbital bombardment procedures also.
its not pay to win
care bear |
Dauss Vrau
Sanmatar Kelkoons
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 17:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Remeus Reinheart wrote:first and foremost - get rid of the pay to win. Items that give an obvious advantage. Pay to win is wrong. Make AUR items cosmetically different only. Also the only repair module for vehicles seems to be AUR only. I hope that's just for the beta.
Second - To generate extra revenue allow corporations, in exchange for a subscription fee, to run corp/alliance only servers to act as "training grounds". As long as the subscription isn't ridiculously over-priced I think you may be surprised at the amount of corporations/clans that would be willing to pay for that sort of thing. As far as the EVE universe could go these could be based in high-sec, or, at the corporations discretion, low-sec, so that EVE players in the same alliance/corp can practise orbital bombardment procedures also.
I do not agree with this post. Business model is fine. |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1904
|
Posted - 2012.07.01 18:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
SuperKing BigNuts wrote:i was in the top 50 on the leaderboards
Leaderboard? Where is that...?
|
Remeus Reinheart
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 21:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Renzo Kuken wrote:Remeus Reinheart wrote:first and foremost - get rid of the pay to win. Items that give an obvious advantage. Pay to win is wrong. Make AUR items cosmetically different only. Also the only repair module for vehicles seems to be AUR only. I hope that's just for the beta.
Second - To generate extra revenue allow corporations, in exchange for a subscription fee, to run corp/alliance only servers to act as "training grounds". As long as the subscription isn't ridiculously over-priced I think you may be surprised at the amount of corporations/clans that would be willing to pay for that sort of thing. As far as the EVE universe could go these could be based in high-sec, or, at the corporations discretion, low-sec, so that EVE players in the same alliance/corp can practise orbital bombardment procedures also.
its not pay to win care bear
Wow how does complaining that people with real money have an advantage have anything to do with carebearing. If anything the other way around is carebearing because you're paying for protection/an advantage against other people. That is carebearing. Nice to see the eve trolls infesting the dust forums now too.
Also not all models are side grades. Do some digging you'll find AUR items that are obviously better than what you can get with isk. They're not hard to find just look at the details. Some suits have higher shield or better CPU than what you can possibly get with isk with all of the other stats of equal value. Yes, it's not the worst business model for balance (not nearly as bad as tribes) but the simple fact is the money items give an advantage. Even if it was as little as 1cpu that's still an advantage. 1cpu could allow you to fit an extra shield extender giving you a much better shield. All those in eve know the feeling of... "damn it! if I just had 3 more cpu I could fit x module..." Because of the way the game works you can't isolate the item and evaluate it in and of itself you have to see what knock-on effect this could have. Just do some browsing of the market and you'll see what I mean.
Even allowing people to have better suits at lower skill levels is a bit off, especially since they're allowed to buy skill boosts too. Skill boosts I can understand for people who work more but have less time, that makes sense but giving people better suits at lower skill is buying power no matter how you spin it. There should just be an equal version of each suite one for isk one (or more) for AUR.
Don't underestimate how much people will be willing to pay for cosmetic differences. I'm not just pointing this out because I personally thing pay to win is wrong, but once the game is released there could be huge backlash. Look at the hate from the Tribes community every time they release a new unbalanced item. Better yet look at the EVE ideas forums when ever anybody suggests something that is even remotely pay to win. LetGÇÖs face it EVE players are probably going to make up a majority of the player base. An unequal playing field is still pay to win though as people have pointed out it is not the worst.
I've mentioned this before but Planetside is going to be this games main competitor and they are specifically avoiding pay to win. Cosmetic, exp multipliers and otherwise obtainable with in-game currency items, not even allowing you to use them with lower skill like here.
This game is going to have some cool and unique aspects like planetary bombardment and even just the overall integration with EVE but even a minor advantage through real money could create a backlash. CCP should know by know how unforgiving the EVE community can be.
|
|
|
Traynor Youngs
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
287
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 21:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
To the OP.
NO!
The game is FREE FOREVER.
Paying doesn't let you win, it just lets you get better stuff SOONER than you would otherwise but someone with SP and ISK will always be at least as good if not better.
And paying for separate servers is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.
|
Max Trichomes
Quantum Kittens Syndicate
68
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 21:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
You know I am going to kind of agree with you OP. Dust's model isn't the worst out there, but it's far from great. Assault Rifle 5 takes more than half a mil SP. The fact someone can purchase with real life money what took me hours to get is paying to win. It may not be as bad as p2w in some games but it still is paying for a large in game advantage. Murder may not be as bad as robbery, but they are both crimes.
It's not just EVE players that are unforgiving, you will find many clans and serious gamers are as well. Dust does not need it's own Jita Monument Riots.
Also confirming I would more than likely purchase a private server for training and goofing off purposes. Especially if we had total control over game options on our private server.
|
RoBoJerk
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 21:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Remeus Reinheart wrote: Pay to win is wrong.
Hippie. This is part of the EVE universe, it's all about unfair advantages. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 21:48:00 -
[14] - Quote
RoBoJerk wrote:Remeus Reinheart wrote: Pay to win is wrong.
Hippie. This is part of the EVE universe, it's all about unfair advantages.
You're both right.
Pay to win IS wrong, when you're talking real-world money as the only option.
But DUST and EVE aren't pay to win in that sense.
Basically everything you can do with real-world money in DUST can ALSO be done without it, if you're competent and have a little bit of patience. I'm not particularly great at the game, but I'm good enough to see that it isn't pay to win. If it was, I'd be quitting already instead of buying the Merc Pack. As of now, I've spent precisely 0 AUR and mostly been running with Militia gear, and from what I can tell, my lack of skill at the game is much more about an ACTUAL lack of skill than about other players having better gear. |
Remeus Reinheart
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 17:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
RoBoJerk wrote:Remeus Reinheart wrote: Pay to win is wrong.
Hippie. This is part of the EVE universe, it's all about unfair advantages.
Again with the trolling. If you're not going to be constructive don't bother, seriously. Also, again, personal insults aside how is saying people should have access to the same content within the game hippieish or carebearing. Obviously you don't have the skill required to make it in EVE where everyone has access to all content and feel you need to buy your way into a win with real money that's all you're proving.
Yes, EVE is unfair, but it's all within the game mechanics. Everyone, if they work hard enough can access anything. Everything can be obtained by anybody. Here you're paying real money to do something another player can't that gives you an advantage. If anything that goes against the sand box. It's like saying to get a titan in EVE you have to buy it with AUR. To get a battleship skill book you have to pay AUR. Getting suits early through a means that isn't in-game is pay to win. Getting suits that are blatently better than any other suit available is pay to win.
Your arguments make no sense Ro, none at all. Normally I don't bother engaging trolls because lets face it, they're pathetic childish morons who are incapable of providing rational arguments but in this case it's bugging the crap out of me because you're all arse-backwards in your argument. If anything the carebear is the person who pays real money to protect themselves in the game. How would you feel if you couldn't be a carebear ganker (which considering your ill thought and witless insults you likely are) [carebear ganker being high-sec gankers who hide behind concord mechanic so they can kill unarmed ships for those who don't play eve] because carebear miners could buy better shield modules with real money that you can't get with isk that would mean you couldn't kill them in time before you got concorded. Not happy I imagine...
Unfairness in EVE is about having the skill or smarts to pull it off not buying it with out of game means.
@Garrett - Look at the top tier AUR stuff. They do have an advantage over the other suits in that catagoery also. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 18:05:00 -
[16] - Quote
Remeus Reinheart wrote:@Garrett - Look at the top tier AUR stuff. They do have an advantage over the other suits in that catagoery also.
Not by enough to make a practical difference in-game. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |