I love these threads where people wind up going all ad hominem on f2p players. Always makes me laugh.
You can't force someone to pay for something that is free. If they want to pay, they will.
But calling them cheap freeloaders and other names doesn't solve anything.
Just a thought.
But then, I doubt that most of the people that these folks complain about even read these threads.
There is that point where some F2P players become a real pain. A company gives so much away free and then it comes a point they need to change something to make money and keep the doors open. When F2P players cry about a game not being free enough like this thread is. People who support the game rightfully get ticked. Name calling is never needed I agree but people who just want to play for free, should also never cry about the fact they get less then the paying customer. If they dont get that, well Im not sure how to say anything else without being rude.
Yeah when you play for free you get what the company gives you for free. I agree they shouldn't be making demands when they're not paying anything anyway.
I guess it sucks when they have to change the game to make money but hey, they can't run servers for free. If the free players don't like it there's a ton of other games out there that are also free.
Sociological and psychological studies show that unfortunately not the polite and well reasoned persons and their arguments are remembered at the end of an event but the people who talk the most and the loud ones. If anyting the internet multiplies that. Thatswhy we have this pest of "vocal minorities".
Another unfortunate fact is that marketing departments are often ill equipped to deal with that. Depending on how experienced certain staffers are they might keep the vision of the project at first, but the longer they get bombarded, the softer their stance often gets and they start looking for "compromises".
The third unfortunate fact is that marketing equally often has the power to change the course of game development. This phenomenon is known as "caving in to the whiners". And usually otherwise passable games get destroyed by that.
So in summary there are good reasons to counter whining demand and doomsayer posts on about the same level because for marketing there is only one thing worse than pissing off potential customers and that is pissing off actually paying customers. So showing them what paying customers really think of the matter and not keeping a calm and reasonable/politically correct tone is of utmost importance.
And besides all that they are just annoying at this point. Every day on the official forum at least 2-3 new threads which beat the same dead horse pop up and here the number is only less because this forum is less frequented. They are either unable or unwilling to understand the issues not onfly on the level of difference between f2p and sub but especially on the level of how giving certain freatures to f2p would be detrimental for the game as a whole. Additionally every other guy feels the urgent need to make another new thread instead of educating himself with the existing ones. Instant gratification even in forum games... In any case it would be a mistake to just ignore it (see unfortunate fact #1) and I reall don't see any reason to still use velvet gloves at this point in time.
Originally posted by Azzudyen As of CB 4 I have not been able to stay logged in while AFK. So I dont see that you will be able to stay logged into the game to replenish LP effectively. Seems much more than 10 minutes of AFK and the system booted me. Anyone else seeing this also?
Yea but I can just set a macro and never log out....good for me, bad for people who can't lol
I only bring this up because I shouldn't have an advantage because I know how to do this and its not something they can ban me for because its not like ill be moving around non stop....a simple "wave" emote every 5 mins should do the job
I personally do not believe the theory that if you make it necessary for people to spend they are less likely to. I think these f2p/optional sub games support themselves solely on whales and subscribers. Those who will not pay will not do so period. It is all nonsense when they say if you do not force me to pay something I am more likely to. Sorry if you are not forced to by inconvenience or otherwise you will not because you do not want to support the company you just want to freeload is all.
Further if spending money on electricity is better than paying the game company then that should be an even bigger sign that these people on principle think they should have the whole game for free. No these type of people should not be supported they will not spend their money on the game just drain the resources and only thing they are good for is provide fodder for PvP and make the game look busy.
I completely disagree with you. Western game developers trying to inject micro-transactions into MMO business models all understand that they need to find the proper balance. In the case of Archeage, the balance is off, but not by so much that it would take more than some minor tweaks to correct.
A feeling of fairness and value is the crucial ingredient for maximizing cash shop and "optional subscription" revenue. Each player will have their own idea of what is fair ; just as there are also players prone to addictive relationships with games, combined with poor impulse control, who will find fairness and value of little practical concern.
Once a company can get a player to buy something that they feel was of appropriate value, they are much more likely to buy other things as they play, often spending more than they might have previously intended. As long s they continue to feel they are receiving a fair value, they are likely to remain a customer. If the start to feel ripped off, they will not only stop paying and stop playing, but they will bad mouth the game and the developers/publishers for a long time to come.
The more "mandatory" cash shop purchases become for playing/enjoying the game, the smaller the pool of players. Yes, the percentage of players who play that pay will be higher, but the pool being smaller will equate to less revenue moving forward. MMOs thrive by snowballing their numbers, not by distilling them down to a fanatical niche.
People who resent those who play free, or even just with more fiscal restraint, are more concerned with justifying their own expenditures than the big picture. The most successful freemium MMOs in the West all have average monthly expenditures per user of around $5. Reduced simplistically, that would mean two free players for every $15/month subscriber. However, it's not nearly that simple, as there are a lot of middle ground players who make purchases other than a subscription, just as there are many subscribers who also make micro-transaction purchases on top of their subscription fee.
Most of those players contribute to the overall success of the game, even those who don't spend a dime. Every happy customer, paying or non-paying, contributes to one degree or another towards the "word of mouth" surrounding the product and may directly or indirectly recruits others to the game who may become paying customers. All also provide the sense of a thriving, well populated game environment, which is necessary before many willing to pay for game play will commit to doing so for a particular game. (Few want to invest in a game that will likely be pretty dead in a year).
People who somehow equate free players to some sort of "welfare state" analogy are completely clueless as to how the F2P business model works, when it works well.
My impression from playing in the latest beta, tracking conversations in game, on the official forums and on sites like this, is that a). Most subscribers, even the hard core achievers, balk at the current cost of labor potions as a viable expenditure. b.) Few, if any, non-patrons see labor potions costs providing a viable alternative to Patron status for casuals or "weekend warriors". c.) Many unwilling to buy Patron status see playing the game as a non-patron as non-viable, and thus will pass on the game entirely.
It wouldn't take much tweaking to bring all three into better balance, which would lead to much better chances for success moving forward and, ultimately, much more revenue.
Bad Design. Period. A good design would be a system complex enough that would make almost impossible to make everything by yourself and encourages you to seek the help of a friend and not force you to seek help.
They did make it almost impossible to make everything yourself and you're encouraged to seek help. No matter how you implement something like that someone will complain that they can't build everything solo. And if they can they complain that nothing sells because everyone can just build anything they need.
There's no way to make everyone happy with that scenario.
The common complaint here is LP regardless of whether you are F2P or sub you will run out of LP. That restricts people in playing how they want. The last game is remember which try to put limits on how players chose to play was FFXIV and we know how it went.
Originally posted by Azzudyen As of CB 4 I have not been able to stay logged in while AFK. So I dont see that you will be able to stay logged into the game to replenish LP effectively. Seems much more than 10 minutes of AFK and the system booted me. Anyone else seeing this also?
Our whole guild was online for the entire beta. No one was booted. Many of us weren't even patrons.
Pretty sure this game will be like most asian time locked MMOs where the server is capable of allowing everyone to stay logged in 24/7. Unless they find their servers can't handle it in open beta...
I found I was only booted if AFK during prime time. If that mechanism remains in place, I'd anticipate the window where you are likely to get booted will be much broader during the initial post release rush and will persist longer on more heavily populated server. That assumes Trion won't just start booting everyone for periods of AFK inactivity like most MMOs do, regardless of server load.
Whether or not the servers will be able to handle large swaths of the game population remaining logged in AFK to earn or maximize LP accumulation, it's just bad game design to encourage or require players to do so.
While It is theoretically possible you could buy a potion every 12 hours for more as an 'advantage', nobody will. If a player is that concerned with crafting 12 hours a day, they would have a second subscriber account. You could even do the same with a F2P account. But that is overkill.
The reality is, someone actually playing the game is not worried about running out of LP. As far as an advantage to unlimited LP, there isn't really one. You need time to gather the materials. A tree takes anywhere from 4 hours to 48 hours to grow. That is REAL TIME. The cost in LP to harvest? 10-20 LP. Carrots grow in 30 minutes, but only take 1 LP to harvest.
You also store up to 5000 LP. But lets say someone does buy LP, do they have an advantage? Not really. They can't craft better items. They might be able to craft slightly more, but that difference is made insignificant by the presence of guilds. Even a small guild will wildly outproduce a credit card warrior.
The BIGGEST advantage you can have in this game? Friends. All the LP in the would won't do squat for you when a group of F2P pirates gank you for your Trade Packs. Gilda is the REAL currency, and that takes cross continent trading.
While It is theoretically possible you could buy a potion every 12 hours for more as an 'advantage', nobody will. If a player is that concerned with crafting 12 hours a day, they would have a second subscriber account. You could even do the same with a F2P account. But that is overkill.
The reality is, someone actually playing the game is not worried about running out of LP. As far as an advantage to unlimited LP, there isn't really one. You need time to gather the materials. A tree takes anywhere from 4 hours to 48 hours to grow. That is REAL TIME. The cost in LP to harvest? 10-20 LP. Carrots grow in 30 minutes, but only take 1 LP to harvest.
You also store up to 5000 LP. But lets say someone does buy LP, do they have an advantage? Not really. They can't craft better items. They might be able to craft slightly more, but that difference is made insignificant by the presence of guilds. Even a small guild will wildly outproduce a credit card warrior.
The BIGGEST advantage you can have in this game? Friends. All the LP in the would won't do squat for you when a group of F2P pirates gank you for your Trade Packs. Gilda is the REAL currency, and that takes cross continent trading.
Considering the hardcore gamers such MMO attracts you would be surprised how fast even subs would also run out of LP. it is just a bad design.
Take a look at MMO's that actually survive without having to pump out crap content every 6 months. They survive bc of things like a meaningful crafting/economy that survives and players make use of. Nothing fucks up economies more than farmers and rampant flooding of the market along with hyper inflation. Archeage realizes this is trying hard to rectify this issue with 2 fixes. One is the APEX system which attempts to mirror the PLEX system in eve in order to curb illegitimate real money transactions; the second is this labor system where you re limited in how much you can put into the economy. This is a free to play game, where one can feasibly create hundreds of accounts and farm, you can see why the economy will very quickly be destroyed. By limiting how many labor points free accounts can get, you curb the farmers, and at that same time, reward valid players by creating a system where their labor points now have value. Value with which they have the choice in house to use them in game. It is no coincidence that there are many striking simillarities between the EVE's market and AA's attempt.
While It is theoretically possible you could buy a potion every 12 hours for more as an 'advantage', nobody will. If a player is that concerned with crafting 12 hours a day, they would have a second subscriber account. You could even do the same with a F2P account. But that is overkill.
The reality is, someone actually playing the game is not worried about running out of LP. As far as an advantage to unlimited LP, there isn't really one. You need time to gather the materials. A tree takes anywhere from 4 hours to 48 hours to grow. That is REAL TIME. The cost in LP to harvest? 10-20 LP. Carrots grow in 30 minutes, but only take 1 LP to harvest.
You also store up to 5000 LP. But lets say someone does buy LP, do they have an advantage? Not really. They can't craft better items. They might be able to craft slightly more, but that difference is made insignificant by the presence of guilds. Even a small guild will wildly outproduce a credit card warrior.
The BIGGEST advantage you can have in this game? Friends. All the LP in the would won't do squat for you when a group of F2P pirates gank you for your Trade Packs. Gilda is the REAL currency, and that takes cross continent trading.
Considering the hardcore gamers such MMO attracts you would be surprised how fast even subs would also run out of LP. it is just a bad design.
How? PVP doesn't use LP. PVE uses very little. I have seen loot bags that take 2LP to open. You get that in 1 minute of play (or 2 minutes logged off). You don't get them every kill, not even close. Farming takes real time for stuff to grow so LP is not an issue there. I have only seen two real ways to run out. Mine grinding. (For Hours and hours straight) OR mass crafting. Guess what, the market only needs so many swords. If everyone crafted unlimited amounts, there would be no demand for them.
But WOW(and other MMOs) don't have those limitations and their economy works.... True. But they don't have player owned farms where people can literally produce crafting materials 24 hours a day.
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA presents a problem and not enjoyable for you.
As is, F2P is just not a viable option for this game. F2P is really just a feature and progress rate limited "free trial".
The problem is that your experience as a F2P players gives you no real taste of the actual game. Without the ability to own any land and with the very limited LP accumulation preventing F2P from being laborers who gather materials for the land owners and builders, F2P players just get a mediocre, old school theme park to plod around in. If they make it to 30, they will find a completely different game when PvP kicks in and discover they are not only at a serious disadvantage, but that they really have little chance to participate in the broader metagame that is the only thing that has any chance to make this game a success.
F2P is really a complete illusion in this game. It's really a subscription game, sans box price, but with a cash shop that is designed to suck as much money as possible out of subscribers who are already paying a monthly fee. Not just on cosmetic items, but on items that can have a significant impact on the accumulation of wealth and power in a competitive FFA PvP environment.
Now, I do appreciate a subscription game that doesn't make you buy the game first, just for the privilege to then "rent" access to the game you just bought. That part is fine by me.
However, how many people who defend the game's current business model would ever have bought into this game if the reality of the business model had been laid out bare?
It's a subscription game that expects you to not only pay $15/month for a subscription, but also to spend possibly many times more that on cash shop purchases in order to remain competitive! It is really the worst of subscription and cash shop business models combined.
I think Trion is banking on the assumption that the best way to exploit their agreement to publish this game in the west is to focus on building a dedicated group of wallet warriors to form a core niche that will gladly hand over sums of cash monthly that will make up for the lack of $15/month only subscribers and F2P players who get by on occasional cash shop purchases. That, to me, signals a cognizance that the title is much more likely to be a flash in the pan success that will quickly fade into oblivion.
Given the history of FFA PvP sandbox games in the West, it may indeed be the best strategy for sucking up as much money as possible from the publishing deal, but we should all at least be honest about it.
I personally don't think the business model would take much tweaking to make it more viable as a mass appeal game, perhaps even being the first FFA PvP sandbox to find success in the West, but it seems Trion would rather not gamble on that potential possibility.
Accepting the game for what it is, I still think the current Labor Point system and the cost/benefit of Labor Potions are selling the game's potential far short. Patrons being the only landowners would work fine if F2P players could provide enough Labor to be worth recruiting as laborers. The common message to those not willing to pay a subscription fee, (which does NOT automatically assume an unwillingness to pay anything), is that they just need a friend or guild willing to let them use a little of their land. What I'd ask is, in exchange for what? I think most competitive guilds are going to find F2P players offering them very little in return for their Patronage and will really only play a role in Guilds looking to trump quality with quantity.
The amount of tweaking needed to the current business model depends entirely on the overall strategy. Deep Pockets Niche Player Base Appeal vs. Broader Market Appeal. I'd argue that the current Labor Point / Labor Potion balance is detrimental to either approach and would deeply benefit from tweaking either way.
Originally posted by fiontar As is, F2P is just not a viable option for this game. F2P is really just a feature and progress rate limited "free trial".
The problem is that your experience as a F2P players gives you no real taste of the actual game. Without the ability to own any land and with the very limited LP accumulation preventing F2P from being laborers who gather materials for the land owners and builders, F2P players just get a mediocre, old school theme park to plod around in. If they make it to 30, they will find a completely different game when PvP kicks in and discover they are not only at a serious disadvantage, but that they really have little chance to participate in the broader metagame that is the only thing that has any chance to make this game a success.
F2P is really a complete illusion in this game. It's really a subscription game, sans box price, but with a cash shop that is designed to suck as much money as possible out of subscribers who are already paying a monthly fee. Not just on cosmetic items, but on items that can have a significant impact on the accumulation of wealth and power in a competitive FFA PvP environment.
Now, I do appreciate a subscription game that doesn't make you buy the game first, just for the privilege to then "rent" access to the game you just bought. That part is fine by me.
However, how many people who defend the game's current business model would ever have bought into this game if the reality of the business model had been laid out bare?
It's a subscription game that expects you to not only pay $15/month for a subscription, but also to spend possibly many times more that on cash shop purchases in order to remain competitive! It is really the worst of subscription and cash shop business models combined.
I think Trion is banking on the assumption that the best way to exploit their agreement to publish this game in the west is to focus on building a dedicated group of wallet warriors to form a core niche that will gladly hand over sums of cash monthly that will make up for the lack of $15/month only subscribers and F2P players who get by on occasional cash shop purchases. That, to me, signals a cognizance that the title is much more likely to be a flash in the pan success that will quickly fade into oblivion.
Given the history of FFA PvP sandbox games in the West, it may indeed be the best strategy for sucking up as much money as possible from the publishing deal, but we should all at least be honest about it.
I personally don't think the business model would take much tweaking to make it more viable as a mass appeal game, perhaps even being the first FFA PvP sandbox to find success in the West, but it seems Trion would rather not gamble on that potential possibility.
Accepting the game for what it is, I still think the current Labor Point system and the cost/benefit of Labor Potions are selling the game's potential far short. Patrons being the only landowners would work fine if F2P players could provide enough Labor to be worth recruiting as laborers. The common message to those not willing to pay a subscription fee, (which does NOT automatically assume an unwillingness to pay anything), is that they just need a friend or guild willing to let them use a little of their land. What I'd ask is, in exchange for what? I think most competitive guilds are going to find F2P players offering them very little in return for their Patronage and will really only play a role in Guilds looking to trump quality with quantity.
The amount of tweaking needed to the current business model depends entirely on the overall strategy. Deep Pockets Niche Player Base Appeal vs. Broader Market Appeal. I'd argue that the current Labor Point / Labor Potion balance is detrimental to either approach and would deeply benefit from tweaking either way.
The only thing requiring tweaking for this game is the spoiled and entitled mentality of that portion of the player base. It has worked, and is currently working just fine in other regions of the world. What does that say about us? Are we some type of special snow flake that are not able to succeed where in other regions of the world, where the system is much more strict, the system is working just fine? Stop the madness already ~ o.O ~
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA presents a problem and not enjoyable for you.
Yeah, LP is going to block that crafter from achieving any competitive edge in the economic game thus leaving it wide open with free reign for those players who want to trade in Cash Shop items. The LP system literally guarantees that the dominant economic traders will be the ones who use real money. What restrictions are in place to balance RMT traders? LP only serves to keep the ones who use the game mechanics in 2nd place.
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA presents a problem and not enjoyable for you.
Yeah, LP is going to block that crafter from achieving any competitive edge in the economic game thus leaving it wide open with free reign for those players who want to trade in Cash Shop items. The LP system literally guarantees that the dominant economic traders will be the ones who use real money. What restrictions are in place to balance RMT traders? LP only serves to keep the ones who use the game mechanics in 2nd place.
I hate to burst your bubble but all mmo economies are dominated by people willing to spend real money and/or spend massive amounts of time in the game.
It's never stopped a casual player from dicking around and doing the things they normally do when they don't pay attention to these people are doing. You were never going to dominate or even compete in the market under any system. This is all a what if forum complaint.
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA presents a problem and not enjoyable for you.
Yeah, LP is going to block that crafter from achieving any competitive edge in the economic game thus leaving it wide open with free reign for those players who want to trade in Cash Shop items. The LP system literally guarantees that the dominant economic traders will be the ones who use real money. What restrictions are in place to balance RMT traders? LP only serves to keep the ones who use the game mechanics in 2nd place.
I hate to burst your bubble but all mmo economies are dominated by people willing to spend real money and/or spend massive amounts of time in the game.
It's never stopped a casual player from dicking around and doing the things they normally do when they don't pay attention to these people are doing. You were never going to dominate or even compete in the market under any system. This is all a what if forum complaint.
Are you are telling me that because certain players have always done this in other games, and that when a new game comes out and rewards this type of player while at the same time,limiting those who'd choose to use the games systems instead, that I've got a bubble that needs to be burst for calling it out?
I get what you are saying. Those who will play , will play in spite of that. Your choice to just roll over and accept it since it's that way anyway, is your judgement. It's subjective. I really wouldn't care either since I probably won't be playing. But I have been watching the change in the MMO business model. So it's affecting more games in the future. I don't think it's acceptable, That's my subjective opinion and until I am not allowed to express it, I will do so,
It's one thing if you think I'm wrong because AA won't play out the way I describe and you want to point out to me where I have missed something, But you are not arguing that. You are telling me am wrong based on your own subjective judgement about what is acceptable by these companies.
Played CB3&4. LP was never an issue for me, but I don't play 5+ hours a day. That said, it is obvious I would never want to not be a Patron if I am going to spend any real amount of time playing. That's also fine with me.
Are you are telling me that because certain players have always done this in other games, and that when a new game comes out and rewards this type of player while at the same time,limiting those who'd choose to use the games systems instead, that I've got a bubble that needs to be burst for calling it out?
This is some seriously wrong business, and I'm wrong for saying so because it's been happening since online games hit the scene?
Is that what you are saying?
no I'm saying the imaginary fantasy world where the casual player competes with the hardcore gamer doesn't exist anywhere but in forum arguments. trying to make it out like LP is what's holding you back is nonsense.
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
Sometimes there are posts that make you stop and rethinking things. To see if things are being seen from a true third party perspective and not influenced by public relation spins or the general belief of the MMO community. I posted the past that a game that it would indeed be folly to remove something if a game was built around, but as a whole that does not mean that the system is not bad. This Labor Point system was tried in the past with FFXIV 1.0 (though Archeage's is objective worse by far due to them having a cash shop that allows the purchase of more) -- a game that immediately took it out once a new team was brought on board. Back then, they could not even give the game away for free in many cases, and this was only rectified once such limitations were lifted (though other core problems were present, despite the dramatic increase of players by comparison).
What is meant when someone says that a system is bad? Is it bad for business? Bad for the market it's trying to break into? Bad for the game? Is it lazy design whereby complexity may have sold the issues it is trying to cover? Is it bad for the consumer? Bad for subscribers? Bad for a particular set of people (or in this case, a majority as explained in your following paragraph). What is the extent of it being bad for the above? Is it bad in the short term or long term?
Unfortunately, I came to the same conclusion in that it is almost all of the above and a horrible rendition of the fatigue system in the worst way -- a combination of facebook tactics for reasons that cast wool over the eyes of those gullible enough to believe such. I've heard the argument that "oh, this will encourage group trading", and "this is for the economy" as well as "it limits playtime and extends the amount of time people play our game" in addition to everything mentioned in the entirety of this post. No, not from recent posts regarding Archeage. From Final Fantasy XIV. The fatigue system was a cheap, lackluster system designed to extend game play and make it so one person could not master everything with swiftness -- not dominate everyone else just because they had the time to do it. They gave a positive spin off it saying that the casual and common player can no be competitive with the hardcore gamer and that limits are good. If you're fatigued, you can grind for items or coin for when you're not, or switch classes and or characters (also costing more money per character).
The lesson learned by the team that took over for them was that limiting gameplay in such a way as objectively bad in the following ways: The market they were trying to infiltrate. Which lead to the business or lack thereof. ...and so on, and so forth. Instead, they realized that a cheap system -- or a game built on it -- is just that. There is the illusion of depth when true depth and complexity can be the remedy sought. The newest version of the game that had that system -- built from the ground up -- now has incredible complexity by it's 2.3.8 patch. It has an amazing economy -- every class and everything thing in the game has it's own meta, and oft several different versions of it and ways to go about it. Everything is treated as it's own class that has it's own "end game". While you are able to max everything, there is not enough time in the day for even power gamers to do everything they have maxed, and thus even if they play 18 hours a day, more than half of their stuff has to be purchased from others. You can pick to go pick herbs, log trees, mine, fight, trading missions, etc. But each task takes a lot of time -- likely a whole play session for most. But they can do it as often as they want, and "nodes" respawn instantly, so you can just stay in the same area and mine over and over again to make money. And despite that, it all sells, and sells well. That's due to the complexity of system and how everything has a meta. It does not limit you with artificial points that can be replenished like it was facebook game; it gives you everything you need as a subscriber, but you will never have enough time in the world to do it all, even if you spent a year mastering it all.
Is it a bad system in that it doesn't work? Isn't functional? No, it's functional. Though that does not mean -- the fact that it was built this way and the gameplay around it for the purpose of making money via facebook's way -- that it wasn't lazy or wasn't the correct way to do things, especially if trying to enter a market where it's alien. Doubly so if it was proven to be a bad system in the past, and the same company that incorporated that system figured out a way to accomplish the same thing over time without limiting what a player may want to do at any given moment. As a developer you have to look at your audience when making a game, and this game was intended to be a big hit in it's place of origin. Little is being done to "westernize" it appropriately now, likely because it's too much work. Because the game was built on a system, it may be too ingrained into it's core. It didn't do as well as expected elsewhere, and now it's trying to play the "sandbox" card while taking out many things that makes a sandbox, a sandbox. Then rush to put positive spins of things that people eat up. Is it bad if just one person enjoys the system, for whatever reason they have? For whatever it turns into in the future? No, it's not bad, at least for them. But objectively speaking? When all evidence is to the contrary, when business knowledge and conventional wisdom both dictate otherwise? When positive PR has to be spun around something? It's bad in many ways, while also being functional. Though being functional doesn't mean the correct decision or best. Though perhaps people are being too harsh on it. Perhaps facebook integration is our future. Maybe we're being too strict with our values and when something isn't the best it could be -- matched with it being offensive to people willing to subscribe or who have had a tussle with facebook monetization systems in the past -- that we're just placing labels where they should not be. That the game simply is just not for us, as your post implies. The hard truth of the matter is, is that if it is function and makes money, then there is nothing wrong with it. But will it make money in the short term or long term with these methods? How many more subscribers would they have without labor point limitations, or the feeling like they should buy more labor points to work on a garden (hmm... I almost feel like playing farmville). Options exist without limitations as is; if they want long term investments, then this system is objectively bad, it will keep many people away because the game is not for them. This is further exasperated by the PvP nature of the game, and the communities typically brought forth from such.
There is a likely scenario, however, that the game's community will be fantastic. I remember FFXI drove away people at the start, and the result was a very nice bunch of people to grind with. It was niche in a lot of ways, but still very nice and fun. If the goal of a system is to chase away those who don't like limitations, but would rather work hard and not spend money on labor daily for the purpose of having a small yet humble community... then the system may in fact be not bad, but perfect.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
I myself enjoy Sandbox games a great deal. The main feature of a sandbox is -limitless- possibilities within the confines of coding. Implementing a feature that does just that -- up to the severity where opening a bag or equipping/identifying items -- is counterintuitive of that. Especially since it mainly focuses on the few sandbox aspects the game has, then allowing someone to go grind for endless hours (it is a Korea game after all) while waiting for it to regenerate. Or purchasing stuff in the store. I also enjoy crafting and gathering and hope to open stores one day in games, as I have back in Ultima Online with prime real estate and hiring NPCs to sell my goods. Turning my house into a true shop from the outside and inside. Logging in to see people in my store due to it's location and having books they could write in, asking for orders.
I'm big into games with great economies that will foster this. I remember spending all night mining in UO, then most of the evening next day using what I mined to craft items and increase my Blacksmithing. Nine months of that, occassionally losing my stuff due to a PK and the full loot system. It was hard work. But I was able to do what I want, as I wanted. I did not fight in that game unless I was on my 6xGM warrior and that was only to delve into dungeons with friends. Or explore the world (though typically I had my tamer / bard / mage for that). That game took a long time just to master Blacksmithing. It was my choice. It's what I wanted to do and I loved it. Then the fatigue system came with FFXIV and everything felt like a chore. Suddenly I was being monitored by Big Brother Square Enix with their warnings of not playing too long and them making it so you can't level anything after playing for a few hours. Mining was fatigued; bontany was fatigued. All that could be done was fighting until the next day. Felt like my parents -- or the government -- were dictating my every move. This feeling was reciprocated by many, and the game dropped down to less than five thousand subscribers.
Everything kept my attention just fine so long as they was complexity and a true sandbox experience. That things still took a long time to accomplish. I quit UO back when they started to sell advanced characters. FFXIV today still shows signs of incredibly strong economies and I have to replenish my shop every day. If I subscribe to AA, I would want the ability to work hard open to me; if I don't I expect a lesser experience of sorts. Though as a whole I believe the labor system to be flawed in most respects -- business, professional and personal. Things will start to feel like dailies over time, with people staying logged into to build LP; only have the ability to log in at night one day? Well, your LP won't be filled up until tomorrow morning. When LP are capped, the insatiable urge to try and use them so they don't go to waste. Or simply playing it as a facebook game and buying more playtime, despite already being subscribed. The simple question is, is this system superior to one that is complex and makes it so you can't do everything by virtue of it's complexity and time consuming nature? In the short term, it's easier to make a game like that. Facebook games are popular because of accessibility in terms of mediums -- I can go on my phone and check my farm if I wanted. Or wait for my labor turn points to be restored in an adventure game. It's easy to log in and use the points accumulated, or to even do so when you're at work or on break. It becomes a job in games like this, and system that doesn't seem to understand this.
But as long as it's functional and has a community, I suppose it's an adequate system so long as it promotes what it spins in public relations. That may be the ultimate truth when the cynics aren't attacking it's nature.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
The fatigue system was also designed to curve this gaming style. For both the grinder and the crafter. But punishing one is a bad business move when simple thought can be put into the game that achieves the same effect. That doesn't alienate people you want money from.
The prospect that many western games have bad economies is a true one -- but they also have simple gameplay behind it. No true meta. The economy is secondary, so long as gold or whatever currency has value. Simple fixes like "gold for items" as is being seen in WoW's WoD as opposed to having Justice or Valor is a way to have gold sinks and promote the value of it. Though it's a bandaid. It's flawed in many ways. The two greatest flawed ways to go about economy is to institute a fatigue system whereby you can't craft or mine or do simple things such as identify, open bags or equip items or institute only gold sinks or just keep revisioning such with each expansion.
Only when the sandbox element is considered and the economy have hundreds of different metas of it's own woven into it's structure -- all combined with every aspect of the game -- will it be remedied in a more positive light. Several variations of each item, every item requiring every other item from every other craft or from people who do dungeons or raid. Making it impossible to have access to everything and having systems of recycling that also provide unique materials or prospects. Indeed, even multiple classes with each character so that player amounts are artificially inflated times twenty combined with the myriad of other features and tactics that complement such. True choice on what you want to do, and what you should do, even if you've spent so long mastering it all. I have entire Free Companies and Linkshells that are dedicated to working together for crafting. They even have goals for crafters (or will have) such as building airships and maintaining chocobo stables. Other players can do these things for you and interact with you.
Any game that restricts all of the above -- the ability to play when you have time or want to, and do what you want -- is inherently and objectively bad in almost every way save for functionality when thinking in the long term. Though it is a bandaid and a lot easier to accomplish and manage if you don't have the manpower or maybe don't trust in your product enough. The short term is done for Archeage in it's place of origin. Now it's coming to the west to try it's luck. Will it succeed? There is always the possibility, especially since people are a bit starved for a MMO they want.
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA is not for you.
Having players and friends always extends the life of a game. Though restrictions of any sort keep people away. Especially when such things are as simple as picking a flower. How many will last up to level 30? Past it? The posts in these forums alone do not look encouraging. I'm getting the feeling that the last sentence -- matched with the others -- is just saying "AA is not for the west" as it mentions most not accepting such things. That, and the knowledge that in the past most players don't make it past level 10 before deciding if they want to stay with a game... and how people feel about Facebook models and the fatigue system of past games. It also seems that Archeage is just in it for the short term money, or has some inexperience people in the financial sector (and possibly development). Given all this, it seems like F2P is the only way for AA to go, despite my previous posts that it should just be P2P or have P2P servers that some modified aspects (that might take months to institute due to the game being built around something most will not accept).
TLDR;
Functionality = adequate for intended populace.
From a business standpoint, it's likely a shortsighted failure.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Are you are telling me that because certain players have always done this in other games, and that when a new game comes out and rewards this type of player while at the same time,limiting those who'd choose to use the games systems instead, that I've got a bubble that needs to be burst for calling it out?
This is some seriously wrong business, and I'm wrong for saying so because it's been happening since online games hit the scene?
Is that what you are saying?
no I'm saying the imaginary fantasy world where the casual player competes with the hardcore gamer doesn't exist anywhere but in forum arguments. trying to make it out like LP is what's holding you back is nonsense.
So that makes it OK to set up game mechanics and systems that encourage that behavior?
My argument is not about what players do, It's about what the developers and publishers are doing.
I get it, WoW has had gold sellers since day 1.....maybe 2, I dunno. And those who took advantage of it, were always ahead. But two things on that. 1st, in games like WoW the gap between players was less profound. In games with resourse control, this effect is going to have a bigger impact. 2nd. Blizzard at least tries to combat it. Why do you think WoW ended up with all different kinds of currency? Sure it was a PITA, but it devaluated the need to gold and increased the payoff for effort.
Now, it's just a blatant attempt to for the publishers to capitalize and promote it. This goes beyond the Publishers saying, "Hey, we want a piece of the pie too" It's not good when the actual game play is purposefully diminished to make way for the whales.
The fact that they take a long time to build, are used for SO much and they designed the game to pretty much get you to spend money to get more back constantly is just a big negative in my book.
Every piece of gear needs to be identified, every bag with some silver uses it, every time you do anything thats pretty much not hitting things uses it, far faster than you get it back. I can see this getting worse later on in the game when you want to do a lot of farm work or gathering at high levels. I get they need to make money and the games decent so it sucks to see they are doing something that is pretty well built into the system to make money.
I still find it funny games feel like they need to do this when there are games out there that make so much and restrict so little, a prefect example coming from the MOBA genre with game like LOL and DOTA2 which at most sells skins and they seem to be raking in the cash. If your game is good you would not need to have crap like this, simple things like skins, character changes, maybe bag slots or very minor things like those would sell reguardless.
Now to hope and pray EQN is good and does not do this kind of crap (though my faith in that game keeps dwindling)
It sounds like a cash grab that a phone app would use.
Originally posted by PaRoXiTiC I don't know anything about the game because it never caught my attention or interest, but it sounds like you guys just want instant gratification instead of having to work for something. That is exactly the problem with this genre these days.
People can see the light at the end of the tunnel. For a game with many possible paths of enjoyment, it just isn't hiding anything wonderful down the road. The math is simple yet so many people wish one thing or dislike another, I'm not the slightest confused, the game just isn't for me.
Now I can focus on what I was doing before this alphabetabioaquadodo... nothing.
This game caught my attention recrently, but im not sure about it.
Since this thread is complaining about an aspect of the game i haven't learned much about yet.
I thought i place my questions in here.
Do f2p players stand a chance against these so called founders?
Or will it be closer to what we have seen in many games?
Because Gameforge has a similiar model for Aion.
Which would be a huge turn off if you couldn't buy it ingame for "kinah" , as the limitations for a completely free user are ridiculous. Though once you managed to get one, you will always have enough ingame currency to afford it every month.
As i've navigated on the site, i've found 30,60 and 90 days "subscription" types.
If i need to be a founder in order to compete with others, and assuming i have to purchase this "pack" each 1-3 months.
Will this be honestly 44 euro (i know it's cheaper if 90 days) for a month?
If yes.
That's 66 botle of beer from my fav brand, or a AAA game each month...
This game caught my attention recrently, but im not sure about it.
Since this thread is complaining about an aspect of the game i haven't learned much about yet.
I thought i place my questions in here.
Do f2p players stand a chance against these so called founders?
Or will it be closer to what we have seen in many games?
Because Gameforge has a similiar model for Aion.
Which would be a huge turn off if you couldn't buy it ingame for "kinah" , as the limitations for a completely free user are ridiculous. Though once you managed to get one, you will always have enough ingame currency to afford it every month.
As i've navigated on the site, i've found 30,60 and 90 days "subscription" types.
If i need to be a founder in order to compete with others, and assuming i have to purchase this "pack" each 1-3 months.
Will this be honestly 44 euro (i know it's cheaper if 90 days) for a month?
If yes.
That's 66 botle of beer from my fav brand, or a AAA game each month...
You misunderstood founders for patrons. Founders are patrons; but any player can be patron at release.
The Labor system feels like it was designed for Asian internet cafes to get people to be logged in playing more then they would otherwise need. LP pots and the like are the developers way of also cashing in on this pie.
In a Western market, well there are far more attractive options and it feels like a cheap and tacky Facebook game.
Comments
Sociological and psychological studies show that unfortunately not the polite and well reasoned persons and their arguments are remembered at the end of an event but the people who talk the most and the loud ones. If anyting the internet multiplies that. Thatswhy we have this pest of "vocal minorities".
Another unfortunate fact is that marketing departments are often ill equipped to deal with that. Depending on how experienced certain staffers are they might keep the vision of the project at first, but the longer they get bombarded, the softer their stance often gets and they start looking for "compromises".
The third unfortunate fact is that marketing equally often has the power to change the course of game development. This phenomenon is known as "caving in to the whiners". And usually otherwise passable games get destroyed by that.
So in summary there are good reasons to counter whining demand and doomsayer posts on about the same level because for marketing there is only one thing worse than pissing off potential customers and that is pissing off actually paying customers. So showing them what paying customers really think of the matter and not keeping a calm and reasonable/politically correct tone is of utmost importance.
And besides all that they are just annoying at this point. Every day on the official forum at least 2-3 new threads which beat the same dead horse pop up and here the number is only less because this forum is less frequented. They are either unable or unwilling to understand the issues not onfly on the level of difference between f2p and sub but especially on the level of how giving certain freatures to f2p would be detrimental for the game as a whole. Additionally every other guy feels the urgent need to make another new thread instead of educating himself with the existing ones. Instant gratification even in forum games... In any case it would be a mistake to just ignore it (see unfortunate fact #1) and I reall don't see any reason to still use velvet gloves at this point in time.
Yea but I can just set a macro and never log out....good for me, bad for people who can't lol
I only bring this up because I shouldn't have an advantage because I know how to do this and its not something they can ban me for because its not like ill be moving around non stop....a simple "wave" emote every 5 mins should do the job
I completely disagree with you. Western game developers trying to inject micro-transactions into MMO business models all understand that they need to find the proper balance. In the case of Archeage, the balance is off, but not by so much that it would take more than some minor tweaks to correct.
A feeling of fairness and value is the crucial ingredient for maximizing cash shop and "optional subscription" revenue. Each player will have their own idea of what is fair ; just as there are also players prone to addictive relationships with games, combined with poor impulse control, who will find fairness and value of little practical concern.
Once a company can get a player to buy something that they feel was of appropriate value, they are much more likely to buy other things as they play, often spending more than they might have previously intended. As long s they continue to feel they are receiving a fair value, they are likely to remain a customer. If the start to feel ripped off, they will not only stop paying and stop playing, but they will bad mouth the game and the developers/publishers for a long time to come.
The more "mandatory" cash shop purchases become for playing/enjoying the game, the smaller the pool of players. Yes, the percentage of players who play that pay will be higher, but the pool being smaller will equate to less revenue moving forward. MMOs thrive by snowballing their numbers, not by distilling them down to a fanatical niche.
People who resent those who play free, or even just with more fiscal restraint, are more concerned with justifying their own expenditures than the big picture. The most successful freemium MMOs in the West all have average monthly expenditures per user of around $5. Reduced simplistically, that would mean two free players for every $15/month subscriber. However, it's not nearly that simple, as there are a lot of middle ground players who make purchases other than a subscription, just as there are many subscribers who also make micro-transaction purchases on top of their subscription fee.
Most of those players contribute to the overall success of the game, even those who don't spend a dime. Every happy customer, paying or non-paying, contributes to one degree or another towards the "word of mouth" surrounding the product and may directly or indirectly recruits others to the game who may become paying customers. All also provide the sense of a thriving, well populated game environment, which is necessary before many willing to pay for game play will commit to doing so for a particular game. (Few want to invest in a game that will likely be pretty dead in a year).
People who somehow equate free players to some sort of "welfare state" analogy are completely clueless as to how the F2P business model works, when it works well.
My impression from playing in the latest beta, tracking conversations in game, on the official forums and on sites like this, is that a). Most subscribers, even the hard core achievers, balk at the current cost of labor potions as a viable expenditure. b.) Few, if any, non-patrons see labor potions costs providing a viable alternative to Patron status for casuals or "weekend warriors". c.) Many unwilling to buy Patron status see playing the game as a non-patron as non-viable, and thus will pass on the game entirely.
It wouldn't take much tweaking to bring all three into better balance, which would lead to much better chances for success moving forward and, ultimately, much more revenue.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
The common complaint here is LP regardless of whether you are F2P or sub you will run out of LP. That restricts people in playing how they want. The last game is remember which try to put limits on how players chose to play was FFXIV and we know how it went.
I found I was only booted if AFK during prime time. If that mechanism remains in place, I'd anticipate the window where you are likely to get booted will be much broader during the initial post release rush and will persist longer on more heavily populated server. That assumes Trion won't just start booting everyone for periods of AFK inactivity like most MMOs do, regardless of server load.
Whether or not the servers will be able to handle large swaths of the game population remaining logged in AFK to earn or maximize LP accumulation, it's just bad game design to encourage or require players to do so.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
LP is not an issue for subscribers.
While It is theoretically possible you could buy a potion every 12 hours for more as an 'advantage', nobody will. If a player is that concerned with crafting 12 hours a day, they would have a second subscriber account. You could even do the same with a F2P account. But that is overkill.
The reality is, someone actually playing the game is not worried about running out of LP. As far as an advantage to unlimited LP, there isn't really one. You need time to gather the materials. A tree takes anywhere from 4 hours to 48 hours to grow. That is REAL TIME. The cost in LP to harvest? 10-20 LP. Carrots grow in 30 minutes, but only take 1 LP to harvest.
You also store up to 5000 LP. But lets say someone does buy LP, do they have an advantage? Not really. They can't craft better items. They might be able to craft slightly more, but that difference is made insignificant by the presence of guilds. Even a small guild will wildly outproduce a credit card warrior.
The BIGGEST advantage you can have in this game? Friends. All the LP in the would won't do squat for you when a group of F2P pirates gank you for your Trade Packs. Gilda is the REAL currency, and that takes cross continent trading.
Considering the hardcore gamers such MMO attracts you would be surprised how fast even subs would also run out of LP. it is just a bad design.
How? PVP doesn't use LP. PVE uses very little. I have seen loot bags that take 2LP to open. You get that in 1 minute of play (or 2 minutes logged off). You don't get them every kill, not even close. Farming takes real time for stuff to grow so LP is not an issue there. I have only seen two real ways to run out. Mine grinding. (For Hours and hours straight) OR mass crafting. Guess what, the market only needs so many swords. If everyone crafted unlimited amounts, there would be no demand for them.
But WOW(and other MMOs) don't have those limitations and their economy works.... True. But they don't have player owned farms where people can literally produce crafting materials 24 hours a day.
Though apparently very popular with the anti-LP folk, the term "bad game design" has no merit when describing the LP system in AA. As described by many, it is a perfectly viable game design when used as intended. It is a game design that works best for AA as it is designed. Any other system would not work, or perhaps work as well, as the LP system in its current state. The only people proclaiming it as "bad game design" are those whose gaming style does not conform with the gaming philosophy encouraged by AA.
A good example of this type of player is the player who's sole purpose is to rise to the top of the crafting or economic scale, as a solo player, as soon as possible thereby controlling the market. The current LP system will not allow this type of player to thrive and accomplish that goal. This type of player is,, therefore, angry that they will not able to set aside round-the-clock gaming sessions to do nothing but gather, mine, craft,and build, thereby scaling the economic scale in quick order as soon as possible after the game is release and corner the market with minerals, products and goods.
The LP system is designed to curve this gaming style. The "economy" game has grown to be a very popular one in the west. For many, this is their only purpose in the game. Whereas they claim the LP system to be "bad game design," little do they realize that it is the rampant and runaway "economy game," game design allowed in many western games that are the truly "bad game designs." This is why the majority of MMORPGs in the west have worthless economies. These players do not realize this, however, because this is the only game they know. And when a different game design is introduced into the market that does not conform to their game style they quickly proclaim it "bad game design."
AA is offering a game that allows a player to do much more than just gather, mine, craft, and build. If you engage in all facets of game play offered by AA, the LP system will never be a problem. If all you want to do is engage in solo 24 hour-non-stop gather, mine, craft, and build sessions, then AA presents a problem and not enjoyable for you.
The problem is that your experience as a F2P players gives you no real taste of the actual game. Without the ability to own any land and with the very limited LP accumulation preventing F2P from being laborers who gather materials for the land owners and builders, F2P players just get a mediocre, old school theme park to plod around in. If they make it to 30, they will find a completely different game when PvP kicks in and discover they are not only at a serious disadvantage, but that they really have little chance to participate in the broader metagame that is the only thing that has any chance to make this game a success.
F2P is really a complete illusion in this game. It's really a subscription game, sans box price, but with a cash shop that is designed to suck as much money as possible out of subscribers who are already paying a monthly fee. Not just on cosmetic items, but on items that can have a significant impact on the accumulation of wealth and power in a competitive FFA PvP environment.
Now, I do appreciate a subscription game that doesn't make you buy the game first, just for the privilege to then "rent" access to the game you just bought. That part is fine by me.
However, how many people who defend the game's current business model would ever have bought into this game if the reality of the business model had been laid out bare?
It's a subscription game that expects you to not only pay $15/month for a subscription, but also to spend possibly many times more that on cash shop purchases in order to remain competitive! It is really the worst of subscription and cash shop business models combined.
I think Trion is banking on the assumption that the best way to exploit their agreement to publish this game in the west is to focus on building a dedicated group of wallet warriors to form a core niche that will gladly hand over sums of cash monthly that will make up for the lack of $15/month only subscribers and F2P players who get by on occasional cash shop purchases. That, to me, signals a cognizance that the title is much more likely to be a flash in the pan success that will quickly fade into oblivion.
Given the history of FFA PvP sandbox games in the West, it may indeed be the best strategy for sucking up as much money as possible from the publishing deal, but we should all at least be honest about it.
I personally don't think the business model would take much tweaking to make it more viable as a mass appeal game, perhaps even being the first FFA PvP sandbox to find success in the West, but it seems Trion would rather not gamble on that potential possibility.
Accepting the game for what it is, I still think the current Labor Point system and the cost/benefit of Labor Potions are selling the game's potential far short. Patrons being the only landowners would work fine if F2P players could provide enough Labor to be worth recruiting as laborers. The common message to those not willing to pay a subscription fee, (which does NOT automatically assume an unwillingness to pay anything), is that they just need a friend or guild willing to let them use a little of their land. What I'd ask is, in exchange for what? I think most competitive guilds are going to find F2P players offering them very little in return for their Patronage and will really only play a role in Guilds looking to trump quality with quantity.
The amount of tweaking needed to the current business model depends entirely on the overall strategy. Deep Pockets Niche Player Base Appeal vs. Broader Market Appeal. I'd argue that the current Labor Point / Labor Potion balance is detrimental to either approach and would deeply benefit from tweaking either way.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
The only thing requiring tweaking for this game is the spoiled and entitled mentality of that portion of the player base. It has worked, and is currently working just fine in other regions of the world. What does that say about us? Are we some type of special snow flake that are not able to succeed where in other regions of the world, where the system is much more strict, the system is working just fine? Stop the madness already ~ o.O ~
Yeah, LP is going to block that crafter from achieving any competitive edge in the economic game thus leaving it wide open with free reign for those players who want to trade in Cash Shop items. The LP system literally guarantees that the dominant economic traders will be the ones who use real money. What restrictions are in place to balance RMT traders? LP only serves to keep the ones who use the game mechanics in 2nd place.
I hate to burst your bubble but all mmo economies are dominated by people willing to spend real money and/or spend massive amounts of time in the game.
It's never stopped a casual player from dicking around and doing the things they normally do when they don't pay attention to these people are doing. You were never going to dominate or even compete in the market under any system. This is all a what if forum complaint.
Are you are telling me that because certain players have always done this in other games, and that when a new game comes out and rewards this type of player while at the same time,limiting those who'd choose to use the games systems instead, that I've got a bubble that needs to be burst for calling it out?
I get what you are saying. Those who will play , will play in spite of that. Your choice to just roll over and accept it since it's that way anyway, is your judgement. It's subjective. I really wouldn't care either since I probably won't be playing. But I have been watching the change in the MMO business model. So it's affecting more games in the future. I don't think it's acceptable, That's my subjective opinion and until I am not allowed to express it, I will do so,
It's one thing if you think I'm wrong because AA won't play out the way I describe and you want to point out to me where I have missed something, But you are not arguing that. You are telling me am wrong based on your own subjective judgement about what is acceptable by these companies.
That's just, like, my opinion, man.
no I'm saying the imaginary fantasy world where the casual player competes with the hardcore gamer doesn't exist anywhere but in forum arguments. trying to make it out like LP is what's holding you back is nonsense.
Sometimes there are posts that make you stop and rethinking things. To see if things are being seen from a true third party perspective and not influenced by public relation spins or the general belief of the MMO community. I posted the past that a game that it would indeed be folly to remove something if a game was built around, but as a whole that does not mean that the system is not bad. This Labor Point system was tried in the past with FFXIV 1.0 (though Archeage's is objective worse by far due to them having a cash shop that allows the purchase of more) -- a game that immediately took it out once a new team was brought on board. Back then, they could not even give the game away for free in many cases, and this was only rectified once such limitations were lifted (though other core problems were present, despite the dramatic increase of players by comparison).
What is meant when someone says that a system is bad? Is it bad for business? Bad for the market it's trying to break into? Bad for the game? Is it lazy design whereby complexity may have sold the issues it is trying to cover? Is it bad for the consumer? Bad for subscribers? Bad for a particular set of people (or in this case, a majority as explained in your following paragraph). What is the extent of it being bad for the above? Is it bad in the short term or long term?
Unfortunately, I came to the same conclusion in that it is almost all of the above and a horrible rendition of the fatigue system in the worst way -- a combination of facebook tactics for reasons that cast wool over the eyes of those gullible enough to believe such. I've heard the argument that "oh, this will encourage group trading", and "this is for the economy" as well as "it limits playtime and extends the amount of time people play our game" in addition to everything mentioned in the entirety of this post. No, not from recent posts regarding Archeage. From Final Fantasy XIV. The fatigue system was a cheap, lackluster system designed to extend game play and make it so one person could not master everything with swiftness -- not dominate everyone else just because they had the time to do it. They gave a positive spin off it saying that the casual and common player can no be competitive with the hardcore gamer and that limits are good. If you're fatigued, you can grind for items or coin for when you're not, or switch classes and or characters (also costing more money per character).
The lesson learned by the team that took over for them was that limiting gameplay in such a way as objectively bad in the following ways: The market they were trying to infiltrate. Which lead to the business or lack thereof. ...and so on, and so forth. Instead, they realized that a cheap system -- or a game built on it -- is just that. There is the illusion of depth when true depth and complexity can be the remedy sought. The newest version of the game that had that system -- built from the ground up -- now has incredible complexity by it's 2.3.8 patch. It has an amazing economy -- every class and everything thing in the game has it's own meta, and oft several different versions of it and ways to go about it. Everything is treated as it's own class that has it's own "end game". While you are able to max everything, there is not enough time in the day for even power gamers to do everything they have maxed, and thus even if they play 18 hours a day, more than half of their stuff has to be purchased from others. You can pick to go pick herbs, log trees, mine, fight, trading missions, etc. But each task takes a lot of time -- likely a whole play session for most. But they can do it as often as they want, and "nodes" respawn instantly, so you can just stay in the same area and mine over and over again to make money. And despite that, it all sells, and sells well. That's due to the complexity of system and how everything has a meta. It does not limit you with artificial points that can be replenished like it was facebook game; it gives you everything you need as a subscriber, but you will never have enough time in the world to do it all, even if you spent a year mastering it all.
Is it a bad system in that it doesn't work? Isn't functional? No, it's functional. Though that does not mean -- the fact that it was built this way and the gameplay around it for the purpose of making money via facebook's way -- that it wasn't lazy or wasn't the correct way to do things, especially if trying to enter a market where it's alien. Doubly so if it was proven to be a bad system in the past, and the same company that incorporated that system figured out a way to accomplish the same thing over time without limiting what a player may want to do at any given moment. As a developer you have to look at your audience when making a game, and this game was intended to be a big hit in it's place of origin. Little is being done to "westernize" it appropriately now, likely because it's too much work. Because the game was built on a system, it may be too ingrained into it's core. It didn't do as well as expected elsewhere, and now it's trying to play the "sandbox" card while taking out many things that makes a sandbox, a sandbox. Then rush to put positive spins of things that people eat up. Is it bad if just one person enjoys the system, for whatever reason they have? For whatever it turns into in the future? No, it's not bad, at least for them. But objectively speaking? When all evidence is to the contrary, when business knowledge and conventional wisdom both dictate otherwise? When positive PR has to be spun around something? It's bad in many ways, while also being functional. Though being functional doesn't mean the correct decision or best. Though perhaps people are being too harsh on it. Perhaps facebook integration is our future. Maybe we're being too strict with our values and when something isn't the best it could be -- matched with it being offensive to people willing to subscribe or who have had a tussle with facebook monetization systems in the past -- that we're just placing labels where they should not be. That the game simply is just not for us, as your post implies. The hard truth of the matter is, is that if it is function and makes money, then there is nothing wrong with it. But will it make money in the short term or long term with these methods? How many more subscribers would they have without labor point limitations, or the feeling like they should buy more labor points to work on a garden (hmm... I almost feel like playing farmville). Options exist without limitations as is; if they want long term investments, then this system is objectively bad, it will keep many people away because the game is not for them. This is further exasperated by the PvP nature of the game, and the communities typically brought forth from such.
There is a likely scenario, however, that the game's community will be fantastic. I remember FFXI drove away people at the start, and the result was a very nice bunch of people to grind with. It was niche in a lot of ways, but still very nice and fun. If the goal of a system is to chase away those who don't like limitations, but would rather work hard and not spend money on labor daily for the purpose of having a small yet humble community... then the system may in fact be not bad, but perfect.
I myself enjoy Sandbox games a great deal. The main feature of a sandbox is -limitless- possibilities within the confines of coding. Implementing a feature that does just that -- up to the severity where opening a bag or equipping/identifying items -- is counterintuitive of that. Especially since it mainly focuses on the few sandbox aspects the game has, then allowing someone to go grind for endless hours (it is a Korea game after all) while waiting for it to regenerate. Or purchasing stuff in the store. I also enjoy crafting and gathering and hope to open stores one day in games, as I have back in Ultima Online with prime real estate and hiring NPCs to sell my goods. Turning my house into a true shop from the outside and inside. Logging in to see people in my store due to it's location and having books they could write in, asking for orders.
I'm big into games with great economies that will foster this. I remember spending all night mining in UO, then most of the evening next day using what I mined to craft items and increase my Blacksmithing. Nine months of that, occassionally losing my stuff due to a PK and the full loot system. It was hard work. But I was able to do what I want, as I wanted. I did not fight in that game unless I was on my 6xGM warrior and that was only to delve into dungeons with friends. Or explore the world (though typically I had my tamer / bard / mage for that). That game took a long time just to master Blacksmithing. It was my choice. It's what I wanted to do and I loved it. Then the fatigue system came with FFXIV and everything felt like a chore. Suddenly I was being monitored by Big Brother Square Enix with their warnings of not playing too long and them making it so you can't level anything after playing for a few hours. Mining was fatigued; bontany was fatigued. All that could be done was fighting until the next day. Felt like my parents -- or the government -- were dictating my every move. This feeling was reciprocated by many, and the game dropped down to less than five thousand subscribers.
Everything kept my attention just fine so long as they was complexity and a true sandbox experience. That things still took a long time to accomplish. I quit UO back when they started to sell advanced characters. FFXIV today still shows signs of incredibly strong economies and I have to replenish my shop every day. If I subscribe to AA, I would want the ability to work hard open to me; if I don't I expect a lesser experience of sorts. Though as a whole I believe the labor system to be flawed in most respects -- business, professional and personal. Things will start to feel like dailies over time, with people staying logged into to build LP; only have the ability to log in at night one day? Well, your LP won't be filled up until tomorrow morning. When LP are capped, the insatiable urge to try and use them so they don't go to waste. Or simply playing it as a facebook game and buying more playtime, despite already being subscribed. The simple question is, is this system superior to one that is complex and makes it so you can't do everything by virtue of it's complexity and time consuming nature? In the short term, it's easier to make a game like that. Facebook games are popular because of accessibility in terms of mediums -- I can go on my phone and check my farm if I wanted. Or wait for my labor turn points to be restored in an adventure game. It's easy to log in and use the points accumulated, or to even do so when you're at work or on break. It becomes a job in games like this, and system that doesn't seem to understand this.
But as long as it's functional and has a community, I suppose it's an adequate system so long as it promotes what it spins in public relations. That may be the ultimate truth when the cynics aren't attacking it's nature.
The fatigue system was also designed to curve this gaming style. For both the grinder and the crafter. But punishing one is a bad business move when simple thought can be put into the game that achieves the same effect. That doesn't alienate people you want money from.
The prospect that many western games have bad economies is a true one -- but they also have simple gameplay behind it. No true meta. The economy is secondary, so long as gold or whatever currency has value. Simple fixes like "gold for items" as is being seen in WoW's WoD as opposed to having Justice or Valor is a way to have gold sinks and promote the value of it. Though it's a bandaid. It's flawed in many ways. The two greatest flawed ways to go about economy is to institute a fatigue system whereby you can't craft or mine or do simple things such as identify, open bags or equip items or institute only gold sinks or just keep revisioning such with each expansion.
Only when the sandbox element is considered and the economy have hundreds of different metas of it's own woven into it's structure -- all combined with every aspect of the game -- will it be remedied in a more positive light. Several variations of each item, every item requiring every other item from every other craft or from people who do dungeons or raid. Making it impossible to have access to everything and having systems of recycling that also provide unique materials or prospects. Indeed, even multiple classes with each character so that player amounts are artificially inflated times twenty combined with the myriad of other features and tactics that complement such. True choice on what you want to do, and what you should do, even if you've spent so long mastering it all. I have entire Free Companies and Linkshells that are dedicated to working together for crafting. They even have goals for crafters (or will have) such as building airships and maintaining chocobo stables. Other players can do these things for you and interact with you.
Any game that restricts all of the above -- the ability to play when you have time or want to, and do what you want -- is inherently and objectively bad in almost every way save for functionality when thinking in the long term. Though it is a bandaid and a lot easier to accomplish and manage if you don't have the manpower or maybe don't trust in your product enough. The short term is done for Archeage in it's place of origin. Now it's coming to the west to try it's luck. Will it succeed? There is always the possibility, especially since people are a bit starved for a MMO they want.
Having players and friends always extends the life of a game. Though restrictions of any sort keep people away. Especially when such things are as simple as picking a flower. How many will last up to level 30? Past it? The posts in these forums alone do not look encouraging. I'm getting the feeling that the last sentence -- matched with the others -- is just saying "AA is not for the west" as it mentions most not accepting such things. That, and the knowledge that in the past most players don't make it past level 10 before deciding if they want to stay with a game... and how people feel about Facebook models and the fatigue system of past games. It also seems that Archeage is just in it for the short term money, or has some inexperience people in the financial sector (and possibly development). Given all this, it seems like F2P is the only way for AA to go, despite my previous posts that it should just be P2P or have P2P servers that some modified aspects (that might take months to institute due to the game being built around something most will not accept).
TLDR;
Functionality = adequate for intended populace.
From a business standpoint, it's likely a shortsighted failure.
So that makes it OK to set up game mechanics and systems that encourage that behavior?
My argument is not about what players do, It's about what the developers and publishers are doing.
I get it, WoW has had gold sellers since day 1.....maybe 2, I dunno. And those who took advantage of it, were always ahead. But two things on that. 1st, in games like WoW the gap between players was less profound. In games with resourse control, this effect is going to have a bigger impact. 2nd. Blizzard at least tries to combat it. Why do you think WoW ended up with all different kinds of currency? Sure it was a PITA, but it devaluated the need to gold and increased the payoff for effort.
Now, it's just a blatant attempt to for the publishers to capitalize and promote it. This goes beyond the Publishers saying, "Hey, we want a piece of the pie too" It's not good when the actual game play is purposefully diminished to make way for the whales.
It sounds like a cash grab that a phone app would use.
People can see the light at the end of the tunnel. For a game with many possible paths of enjoyment, it just isn't hiding anything wonderful down the road. The math is simple yet so many people wish one thing or dislike another, I'm not the slightest confused, the game just isn't for me.
Now I can focus on what I was doing before this alphabetabioaquadodo... nothing.
Hey guys!
This game caught my attention recrently, but im not sure about it.
Since this thread is complaining about an aspect of the game i haven't learned much about yet.
I thought i place my questions in here.
Do f2p players stand a chance against these so called founders?
Or will it be closer to what we have seen in many games?
Because Gameforge has a similiar model for Aion.
Which would be a huge turn off if you couldn't buy it ingame for "kinah" , as the limitations for a completely free user are ridiculous. Though once you managed to get one, you will always have enough ingame currency to afford it every month.
As i've navigated on the site, i've found 30,60 and 90 days "subscription" types.
If i need to be a founder in order to compete with others, and assuming i have to purchase this "pack" each 1-3 months.
Will this be honestly 44 euro (i know it's cheaper if 90 days) for a month?
If yes.
That's 66 botle of beer from my fav brand, or a AAA game each month...
You misunderstood founders for patrons. Founders are patrons; but any player can be patron at release.
http://www.archeagegame.com/en/news/2014/06/archeage-patron-program-apex/
In the last livestream they hinted to look at rift prices.
http://www.riftgame.com/en/store/#patron
The Labor system feels like it was designed for Asian internet cafes to get people to be logged in playing more then they would otherwise need. LP pots and the like are the developers way of also cashing in on this pie.
In a Western market, well there are far more attractive options and it feels like a cheap and tacky Facebook game.