When I first played SWTOR (like 4 years ago) I thought that this was the norm, but now I know that this isn't the case.
So, I think it would be really cool to have that option.
I am unsure if the crafter or the user should name the weapons, but regardless I find this interesting.
While discussing about another game, I just realized that a cosmetic cash shop may lead to p2w. Sure that may seem weird for the most of you so please bear with me.
SWTOR (which I have played for 3 years) has a cash shop which has; a) cosmetic items and b) items used by non subscribers, such as raid passes and the like. So, SWTOR's cash shop per se is not p2w. As most of these cosmetic items are behind an RNG wall (aka lootboxes), some are very popular and rare and as such cost a lot of in-game currency. As such a person who spends a lot of real money into these cosmetic items may make a fortune of in-game currency. And here comes the tricky part.
SWTOR doesn't have a player driven economy, or in other words, the best gear comes from the game either as loot (directly) or through tokens and the like. As such the cash shop doesn't have p2w "implications" either. But what would have happened if SWTOR had a player driven economy and the best gear was coming from the players/crafters?
In that case we would have the following paradigm;
When you start with "Real money" and you end up with "gear with stats", regardless how many stages you have gone through, you end up having p2w.
Sure, a number of assumptions have been made and things are more complex, but none of these assumptions or complexities will change the end result of the game ending being p2w. It may be "more" or "less" p2w or p2w in "this" case and not in "that" case, but it will be p2w.
So, is a purely cosmetic cash shop always p2w? NO!
It isn't the cosmetic cash shop per se, neither is a sub token (see EVE's PLEX) per se p2w, what is p2w is the combination of;
To put it simply, if the cosmetic items of the cash shop can be traded in the game you have RMT, if you don't allow these cosmetic cash shop items to be traded in-game you won't have RMT.
No RMT means no p2w.
And here comes a very important question;
Will it be possible to trade in-game Fractured's cosmetic items or not?
@kellewic said in I want to get excited but...:
Yes, I've read the many threads and pages about PvE vs. PvP and it's definitely not only a heated topic but also a hard problem to tackle.
I really like the idea of the potential struggle between races/alignments. I agree with some statements made by @Phaethonas in another thread I read this morning as well - https://forum.fracturedmmo.com/topic/1481/feature-spotlight-6-pvp-alignment-crime/52 - regarding Demons seeing this huge disadvantage as a challenge and alliances being created. But, this is only half the story in my opinion. If such an alliance did form, I could see one being formed on the Good side as well - this could create a very interesting inter-planetary struggle for resources
I doubt that such a "Good" alliance would be formed, and that (such an alliance not forming) would be a problem actually.
If you are right and such a "Good" alliance forms, then the pvpers will have the challenge that we want and the pvers will be protected to a certain, and possibly sufficient degree. The problem though is that, the "good guys" won't be incentivised to form such an alliance. Any "good alliances" formed will be limited at Syndesia, the human planet, and will be formed around politics and dynamics at that planet.
These alliances will have no reason to go to Arboreus and protect the care bears there. The Arboreus players could be split to two categories. The spine-less care bears and those who realize that when you try to marry pve and pvp in an open world environment (as Fractured tries to do), you have to accept that you may be killed at times by that pvper who is roleplaying a "bad guy". The spine-less care bears, won't be able to form nor participate in an Alliance of Good. So who is gonna protect them? Who is gonna rush to support/help them, when they won't be helping themselves? People tend to help other people in need, if the latter (those who are in need of help), are trying to help themselves. So no "Alliance of Good" will be formed at Arboreus, and no "Alliance of Good" formed at Syndesia will bother to protect the care bear beasties.
This will bring unbalance at the game. This will create the exact problem the care bears don't won't to face; being ganked/killed. And it will do so exponentially.
The mechanics that were announced will incentivize the "Bad Guys" to make peace at times and form a necessary alliance that without they won't survive.
As I said, you need mechanics that will keep the demons.....Fractured (pun intended). Instead mechanics that will incentivise demons to band together were announced!
Have no doubt, if I play the game, I will be there and I will be advocating unity. But uniting a large group of people, let alone "wild" pvpers, is not an easy task, under normal circumstances. I doubt that my message of occasional unity will be heard, if the said unity is not needed in order to go and get pine wood. When you won't be able to get pine wood though, you will be willing to listen to my message of this Alliance.
As I've said before. Fractured tries to combine pvp and pve. This means that extreme pvpers (call them gankers or otherwise if you like) have no place at this game. But this also means that, extreme pvers (I call them care-bears) also have no place in this game. If the game tries to cater at either of them, the balance is being lost, and the game will ultimately fail.
It may take 3-4 years for the game to collapse, Dynamight Studios may have made a profit by then, but from a player's perspective? The game will have failed.
tl;dr
Do not incentivise demons to band together.
@kellewic said in I want to get excited but...:
I was thinking more in response to a consistent threat from an Evil alliance, which gives the incentive. Granted getting any large number of players together consistently is a challenge in of itself.
Who is gonna make this alliance? The care bears? Extremely doubtful. You know what care bears will do? Start whinning at forums.
Granted, non-care-bear pvers will exist at Arboreus, but will they have the numbers to form such an Alliance?
This is the part where I'm still a bit unclear. Each planet has it's own unique resources; not necessarily better, just different. Is there any incentive for other planets to want said resources and thus potentially creating strife or is this really just 3 games with one engine?
Well, with the game having multiple ways to travel between planets, and these being one of the main selling points, what do you think?
If they wanted 3 games with one engine, then they should have made each planet inaccessible. Then there would be no need for measures and counter-measures, and counter-counter-measures, in order to balance things. Are you a pver (including a care bear)? Your planet is Arboreus. Are you a pvper (including ganker)? Your planet is Tartaros. Are you a pvp/pver (care bears and gankers are excluded)? Your planet is Syndesia. That would be simple, and would work like a charm.
But this is not what we are getting. The devs clearly want to make something more complex, for better or for worse. And judging from the mechanics, this more complex game, is build around travelling between worlds. What is the incentive on that? Different
And this is how MMOs die. Bad economy.
@finland said in I want to get excited but...:
@phaethonas said in I want to get excited but...:
As I've said before. Fractured tries to combine pvp and pve. This means that extreme pvpers (call them gankers or otherwise if you like) have no place at this game. But this also means that, extreme pvers (I call them care-bears) also have no place in this game. If the game tries to cater at either of them, the balance is being lost, and the game will ultimately fail.
I'm wondering if you are joking. Tartaros is for extreme pvpers. The problem is only for carebears. We'll se if they have their spot (they must have one) . Asking to FFA everywere is silly. Extreme pvpers that want kill carebears/ gatheres hahaha I call hem spineless. Ambush stile is spineless attitude ;). An invasion looks more like a war and could be funny but the number will make the difference and unbalance the fight prolly.
If fractured were hosted on two servers, one PvE (flag to pvp everywhere but only flagged can be attacked) and one PvP (ffa everywhere without debuffs and restrincions) I wonder if you would play fractured on the PvP server.
It may take 3-4 years for the game to collapse, Dynamight Studios may have made a profit by then, but from a player's perspective? The game will have failed.
I don't know and we'll see. I'm only sure that making games for pkers (givin hem what they want) is a fail.
No I am not joking, and no, I don't want to FFA everywhere.
There are two extreme groups, a pvp extreme group and a pve extreme group.
The pve extreme group are the care bears, who want no pvp at all. Fractured is not for them by definition, unless Fractured's main mechanic is abolished. That mechanic is of course, travelling between the planets.
The pvp extreme group, is group of pvpers that do not like competitive pvp. They like to kill easy pickings, whether these are pvers or low level pvpers. Call them gankers, or griefers or as anything else you want. As it stands now, Fractured will not cater to them. Which is good.
The problem arises, by the fact that as it stands now, there is an effort in order to cater to the cear bears. An effort that will seriously backfire as I have explained in previous comments, at other threads, which you are well aware, so, I don't really have to link them.
The main point is that, by restricting demon travelling to Arboreus (and I should remind here that planet travelling is a main mechanic of Fractured), in order to cater to the cear bears, you imbalance the economy.
@kellewic said in I want to get excited but...:
I could see things like
- Beastmen guilds designed to protect against attacks (whether by Demons or Humans) and possibly take the fight to them.
As a matter of fact, I was planning at making/participating in such a guild, till I realized that the demons were given the short stick by the devs, in order to cater to the cear bears.
And I will ask again. Who is gonna make the said guild? Who is gonna participate in it? The care bears? Not a chance. The rest of Arboreus population? Perhaps. Will they have the numbers though? And what will the care bears do? Accept that this is the game and move on? Extremely doubtful. They will rage and whine at the forum, that is what they will do. Alas, they are basically doing that now! Imagine what they will do when the first invasion from the "Unholy Alliance" takes place!
@miffi said in I want to get excited but...:
@phaethonas He does have a point in that it seems that its just pk'ers looking for easy kills against those who dont know how to. I think thats the fear a lot of people have. But then again I'm quite happy with the decision DS have done with the stat reduction so I dont think its much of an issue anymore.
I have explicitly said that both the extreme pve players (aka care bears) as well as the extreme pvp players (pk'ers looking for easy kills as you call them) should not be catered at Fractured, if the devs want the game to work.
Finland on the other hand, wants care bears to be catered (he has said so explicitly) and wants all pvpers (and not only those looking for easy killings) to be locked into an instance (see arenas), all the while Fractured is an open world, sandbox game!
That is insane.
@miffi said in I want to get excited but...:
One group isnt happy with fighting each other and desire to involves those who dont and people feel as those others are going out of their way to make sure they wont enjoy a game they would otherwise have.
In that case, Fractured is not designed for these players. There are games designed exclusively for pvers, like Saga of Lucimia. Pantheon will also feature a very strong pve centric gameplay, with most servers being pve servers and maybe (just maybe) pvp servers later on.
Each planet at Fractured is not a pvp/pve/pvx server. The game revolves around the concept of different economies (at each planet) and the necessity of moving from planet to planet for economy/financial reasons. As such, pvers should accept that they will come in contact with pvpers and that the latter may kill them. This rules out the care-bear pvers. Similarly, in order not to discourage other pvers (non care-bear pvers), a number of obstacles will (and should) be applied, which will stop pvpers from "griefing". As such, whether you want to call them griefers, gankers or otherwise, these extreme pvpers should also not be catered.
I will say for Nth time; The moment the devs decided these two grous to co-exist, they have to take measures in order for extreme pvpers (aka gankers) and extreme pvers (aka care bears), not to be catered. If either will get catered, then the game will collapse, because of a number of imbalances, primarily among them, those related with the economy of the game.
Another route the devs can take is to make each planet self-sufficient with self-sustainable economy. This though changes their already announced plans. In that case, care-bears would pose no problem at Arboreus. But so far, we know that this won't be the case. As things are today, we know that the economy of each planet will not be self-sustainable. So, you can't deny access to arboreus to the demons, just because care-bears are afraid. That will lead to a problem at the game's economy.
It is that simple.
Start looking beyond what you want, and the gameplay you want, and start seeing the whole picture. If you do, you will understand that if you have planets with economies that are non-self-sustainable, then you need the travelling mechanic. Imposing restrictions that will make travelling impractical, will create serious problems.
@finland said in I want to get excited but...:
@phaethonas gankers should not play if they are low and just want easy kills. So the answer is: no games for them.
Well, who expresses hate now? Unlike you, I want everyone to have a game to play. Even pay2winners, and I hate p2w.
Regardless, at the very least, it seems that you finally agree with me, that gankers should not and will not be catered at Fractured. Similarly, and for the same reasons, care-bears should not be catered. Catering either will bring unbalance to the game, especially its economy, and as such the game will collapse.
@gothix said in I want to get excited but...:
@Phaethonas @Finland Fractured will not have ganking for the simple reason that it does not have levels, and all people start with access to full stats and EQUAL maximum skill slots CAP in a skill bar.
[...]So people can stop "ganking" discussions really. This is not that kind of MMO.
And if someone doesn't have skills to play, well, then that is his own problem, and not a problem of other people that are also playing Fractured. He can play, practice and get better.
My point(s) exactly.
Thank you for putting it, in another/one more/better/more detailed way.
@gibbx said in I want to get excited but...:
@gothix I believe this is incorrect. progression will be linear so while there will not be disparity in levels one player may well have a steep advantage in having progressed farther in the knowledge system and have access to much better skills. Ergo you can (and will) be ganked.
Your analysis does not take into consideration a number of things, including, but not limited to, the following;
a) there are safe zones, including one (called "nests") at Tartaros, which won't allow pvp. These can be used by new players in order to be safe. There they will progress their knowledge system, enough, in order to be able to be competitive.
So, after you have progressed enough in your knowledge tree, there will be no more "better skills", but rather more skills and more combinations of skills.
Sure that brings the question of "how much is enough", but this is a question that will be answered during testing. Once this "enough" "quantity" is found, the player will be able to progress that much, within the said safe zones (e.g. "nests").
As such, when this player ventures out of the safe zone(s), he/she will not be in direct and clear disadvantage over another, more "knowledgeable", player.
b) You won't be able to have all skills active at the same time, neither all can be at your ability bar.
So, after a while getting deeper in the knowledge tree won't offer you any direct advantage over another player. The only advantage you will have is that your character will be more versatile.
I, for example, will have only tanking skills, but you on the other hand will have tanking and healing skills. This will allow you to run a hybrid or switch between a healer, a tank and a hybrid.
@zwiterion said in VIP system : What do you think ?:
What we know : VIP membership includes bonuses such as additional Learning Slots, increased Knowledge Point gains, discounts on Store items and unique cosmetic rewards for accumulated VIP time. It's only time savers and cosmetic stuff - we're not selling power there!
Now some people think its p2w other dont.
It is not a matter of perspective. It is a matter of reality. Either something gives an advantage (in which case it is pay2win) or it does not.
The principal concern is probably the additional learning slot and the increased knowledge point gain. Depending on how it's done and how much of a boost it give it could either be a big advantage early game or just a slight time booster. I think that we should remember that in the end with enough time played a player without vip can still acquire the same lvl of power than a vip player.
With enough time played a player without VIP will always be behind an active VIP player. In order for the non-VIP player to catch up, you need the VIP player to be inactive, or if you want to be 100% accurate, the ratio "VIP's activity/non-VIP activity" to be a very small number, maybe even <1.
If the Vip system remain the same, a suggestion a could make to make it less pay to win would be to enable player to buy directly form the shop (not a trade with a player) the vip status with in-game currency. That way someone who want to go the easy way could use real money to buy it and a player who want the status and play a lot the game could still be vip without using real money.
What do you think about that ?
As far as I know this has never happened before. When sub tokens are offered to players for in-game currency, this is being done within player trading. In that case of course the system becomes more pay2win, if the game has a player driven economy, like Fractured has. Now, if something like what you describe does happen, it will "dilute" the pay2win potential of the VIP membership.