The Path of the Game...

[ubermick]

Doesn't the fact that these guys had to "earn" their stuff the hard way make your contention here complete bull?

Griefing and cash for credits are entirely separate issues, lets try to be a little objective here.

Considering that there are plenty of well documented exploits in the Alpha that can be used to rack up a pile of credits that will surely be removed prior to the full release, no I don't think that my contention is "complete bull." Right now in the Alpha, money is easy to come by. In the final game, money will be less easy to snag.

**IF** cash for credits is used in the final game, then money is once again easy to come by, meaning that for X amount of outlay, a griefer can equip themselves with a rather powerful ship that they can use to harass others. If that money takes the aforementioned player 20 or 30 hours of trading or the equivalent to earn, then it's less likely the casual griefer sort will invest the energy in being a troll.

 

[Shepard]

Everything in ED is about credits. Either you explore, trade or just be a butthole screwing everyone up by griefing - everyone will need credits in the end - to buy new / better ship, to buy ship equipment, armament, to repair ship, etc etc. Its all about credits either its early or end game.

 

[Oculus]

There is another option with this cash to in game currency. You could suggest as in real life that to upgrade to the next ship class/size you have to pass a pilot course. This can be done with credits you earn or you can buy your licence.
This means those who don't have much time can get an upgrade to the next ship class by buying.

its not really giving a too big an advantage as its only a licence. Thoughts?

 

[tooterfish]

There's been suggestions that better equipment and ships could require better pilot ratings and reputation.

**IF** cash for credits is used in the final game, then money is once again easy to come by, meaning that for X amount of outlay, a griefer can equip themselves with a rather powerful ship that they can use to harass others. If that money takes the aforementioned player 20 or 30 hours of trading or the equivalent to earn, then it's less likely the casual griefer sort will invest the energy in being a troll.

Mate, this is pure conjecture. You can't just keep stating your opinion as fact like this.

The game has pretty much no consequences for griefing right now, for all we know that could be the main reason we're seeing it. And how much is it happening really? Lets not get carried away here, it can't be that common or the forums would be absolutely full of people complaining about it.

The consequences are going to get much more severe. I imagine in the final game that attacking a ship in the vicinity of a station is going to be suicidal. So, it could just as easily be argued that people would be much more careful with a ship that cost real money, they wouldn't want to get it blown up by the fuzz.

 

[ubermick]

There's been suggestions that better equipment and ships could require better pilot ratings and reputation.Mate, this is pure conjecture. You can't just keep stating your opinion as fact like this.

It might be an opinion, but it's an informed one - any game where in game currency is purchased by cash that I've experienced has been littered with a far higher proportion of issues than those without it. Griefers, scams, theft, are all things I've seen quite often, and heard about far more from friends who are far more into gaming than I am. Look through this thread to read testimony from other people who have experienced the same thing, and feel the same way.

Incidents in the Alpha of this nature are obviously not an issue. For starters, there's not a single person in there who could be classed as someone with a casual interest, given the fact that everyone involved has lashed out £300 a pop or more. Aside from that, currency is pointless at the moment since there's not only the (potential) cash for credits situation, but everyone will lose what they have soon anyways. So of course, at the moment there's nothing to talk about. And that's the point: I (and many others) want to avoid it happening.

So yes, it's discussing something that may not happen - but that goes for absolutely me very thread on here, given the game isn't even in beta yet. We're all discussing features we want to see, and features we don't. That's why I included the word if quite often. In caps. With asterisks around it.

It's ALL conjecture at this point, just as assuring people that a potential feature may or may not be implemented to combat the negative impact another potential feature that may or may not be implemented that may or may not cause a problem.

 

[Paden]

Griefing: DBs comments at the BAFTAs

Just saw this interview from BAFTAs where David Braben comments on griefing at 4:33...

http://youtu.be/UlFwSj_Ix1o

Hadn't heard the idea of the ability for persistent griefers to be put in "shards" / instances with each other, then they only get to annoy other griefers. Love that idea. I know that piracy is an important part of Elite, but I guess I'll only be able to play a limited amount, so don't want to get creamed every time. This sounds like a good solution, though I guess it will be difficult to get the balancing right for identifying and penalising griefing.

 

[Squicker]

Incidents in the Alpha of this nature are obviously not an issue. For starters, there's not a single person in there who could be classed as someone with a casual interest, given the fact that everyone involved has lashed out £300 a pop or more.

Exactly, and I think this is something people on the forum forget generally. Once the game goes on sale us nostalgia freaks will be outnumbered thousands to one, hopefully anyway, as that means ED is a success.

This will always bring a spectrum of players and IME, subscription games tend to discourage the more undesirable elements. I know that sounds like gaming apartheid but the simple fact is the commitment to a sub puts off people who tend to play badly or disruptively. Anyone who has been in an MMO through sub and onto F2P can testify to this.

When you then add a cash shop you start in motion an arms race of legitimised cheating, because it is cheating the game, even though the cash shop allows it. I know no one here would buy credits from a cash shop because we all want to experience the exploration and trading elements of Elite but, if the game is a success we'll be outnumbered.

The last one I saw this conversion in was Rift and literally overnight (once going F2P\cash shop) the zone chat went to utter racist, sexist childish dross and you ended up queuing for a dungeon with tanks that had BIS gear but didn't know the mechanics and, when they caused you all to die through not knowing how to hold aggro, just ended up swearing at you or trying to kick the healer who they just allowed to die. If you even suggest to these people, "you might try xxx tactic", you'd usually get a gobfull of, "I know how to fing play dude, I pwn" type crap. I had to leave what was actually an excellent game.

As someone earlier said, credits is everything in Elite. Putting a cash for credits mechanism into Elite would be as shockingly dumb as putting one into a stock market simulator. The entire economy would be wrecked from day one and the game would be rendered entirely pointless for everyone in the multiplay universe. Essentially large numbers of people would then opt to play solo (as I did in the end in Rift\TSW before leaving) because it would in fact be the only realistic option if you wished to keep the game experience 'pure'.

I can't see how this is even a point of discussion, it's so obvious you simply don't allow C4C in a game that is essentially a massive trading simulator!

 

[tooterfish]

This will always bring a spectrum of players and IME, subscription games tend to discourage the more undesirable elements. I know that sounds like gaming apartheid but the simple fact is the commitment to a sub puts off people who tend to play badly or disruptively. Anyone who has been in an MMO through sub and onto F2P can testify to this.

That's a false dichotomy though, because Elite isn't a free to play game.

As someone earlier said, credits is everything in Elite. Putting a cash for credits mechanism into Elite would be as shockingly dumb as putting one into a stock market simulator. The entire economy would be wrecked from day one and the game would be rendered entirely pointless for everyone in the multiplay universe. Essentially large numbers of people would then opt to play solo (as I did in the end in Rift\TSW before leaving) because it would in fact be the only realistic option if you wished to keep the game experience 'pure'.

And yet, cash for credits actually helped to stabilise the EvE economy, because farmers and botters were undercut. EvE's economy didn't collapse despite being almost entirely player driven, unlike Elite's where the developers have much tighter control.

Like I said, lets be objective here and look at the facts, not our gut feelings.

 

[Squicker]

Like I said, lets be objective here and look at the facts, not our gut feelings.

I am not looking at my gut feeling, I am looking at my experience. Yours might be different; I've not played EvE so I don't know how that works at all, for example.

Elite isn't a free to play game.

The point above is true of course. That was my lax thinking because it's free for me - well, 150 quid then free ;-) - it's free for all!

 

[KickahasTier]

Like I said, lets be objective here and look at the facts, not our gut feelings.

Fact, we need FD to tell us what they plan. But it's likely that they are waiting for beta to try out different things.

My gut feeling is that MT will suck and should be kept out of the game. Also as players will be able to trade and transfer credits, then gold for credits is required to keep out gold sellers by undercutting any possible profit they would make.

As for ongoing revenue for FD, they need to get their act together and update us as to their plans. There is the tiny possibility that because this is a game written to "play" we wont be gouged for every red cent... but FD did go public..

 

[Squicker]

Also as players will be able to trade and transfer credits, then gold for credits is required to keep out gold sellers by undercutting any possible profit they would make.

but FD did go public..

Allowing legit cash purchases to undercut gold sellers is a little like the Bank of England printing loads of money because some people counterfeit it now and then. If the game security is weak enough that gold farming by bots can happen on a mass scale, then they ought not to make a further mistake of selling cash for credits IMO. They should deal with the inherent weaknesses.

There'll always be some gold sellers if a game is successful but if the game balance is right, people won't flock to them.

Ongoing revenue ought to be generated by selling DLC and XPacs, same as most other games out there, especially as their infrastructure will be so light when compared to true MMOs with centralised servers taking a big real-time load. But yes, a quoted might find itself under shareholder pressure to milk the product, especially if sales revnue is not what the market has bet on. Look at the recent tactics with the never-ending alpha, "200 quid for alpha, I mean 100, ooops, I mean 50"..."just for one more month", "oh and another", "one more weekend!", "alpha nearly over but buy in now on the last weekend for the bargain of 100 quid and you get free insurance!!!!" "Please please pretty please buy alpha!!!"

If that sort of behaviour carries on into live I am sure we can all see how it'll be. "Half price credits this weekend!", "half price on a fully loaded Cobra THIS WEEKEND ONLY!!!" , "Roll up, roll up, git yer cheap missils, git yer cheap missils!!!!" yadayada.

 

[technome]

*snip*

Look at the recent tactics with the never-ending alpha, "200 quid for alpha, I mean 100, ooops, I mean 50"..."just for one more month", "oh and another", "one more weekend!", "alpha nearly over but buy in now on the last weekend for the bargain of 100 quid and you get free insurance!!!!" "Please please pretty please buy alpha!!!"

*snip*

Where do you get this from? Alpha access costs £200 and always has, even as far back as the original kickstarter campaign. It's true that backers from lower tiers are offered discounts appropriate to their earlier contributions if they elect to upgrade to the alpha tier but that's not gouging. OK, it's using a bit of hype to recruit as many alpha testers as possible for the next phase. But that's a positive strategy in order to ensure that the game gets throughly tested. Surely no one with any interest in seeing the game relatively bug-free at launch could have any problems with that?

 

[grae3107]

Personally I can not see FD implementing cash for credits because of this:

INFLATION
The economy is not a balanced system of checks and balances, but a system of causes being used to generate effects. As such there is a danger of inflation (where players accumulate so much money that it is effectively devalued).

This issue can only be completely eradicated if money is destroyed in the same quantity that is being created. As the game is focused on positive effects (from the player’s perspective), with only some negative effects, this is not an achievable goals.

To combat inflation there needs to be suitable money sinks that the player spends money on reducing the cash in the player economy.

It should be noted that players getting richer is not the same as inflation and is desirable. However we should ensure that at all times there are interesting spend choices.

This was taken from the design archives and although refering to economy buying credits would have the same effect over time. A playing buying credits devalues in game currency.

 

[Orc]

This was taken from the design archives and although refering to economy buying credits would have the same effect over time. A playing buying credits devalues in game currency.

It does, but that can be countered by implementing more and more gold sinks, often attached to common everyday activities, such as traveling, mining or trading with other players. Guild Wars 2, for example, allows (in)direct cash to ingame gold conversion. Although inflation exists, they keep it under control, by, among other things, controlling the exchange rate.

The problem for me is that cash shop games, both buy-to-play and free-to-play, tend to have microtransactions as their core feature, not as a tributary convenience. It means that most design decisions are analyzed from cash shop perspective for possible profit. Features are added, modified or cut depending on their cash shop potential. This practice extends down to even the most minute rules, such as making some classes of items (un)tradable, time-gating player actions, introducing additional currencies or tokens, etc.

Of course, the producers want to make a profit. However. The traditional approach (buy-to-play or sub-to-play, without cash shops) had them put in all their efforts into making a game that people will love to play as it is, and therefore gladly pay the asking price. On the other hand, the new model makes them focus solely on first selling the base game (in the case of buy-to-plays), and then on leeching money, usually in the most nontransparent way possible, by constantly annoying people into cash shop for that elusive burst of joy and satisfaction, that should have been game's fundamental feature to start with.

Can a game have cash shop and still be fun to play? I would mention Path of Exile as a commendable example, because even though it is a free-to-play game, and it runs on their servers, they've allowed people to actually have loads of fun without pushing them into spending cash. And no, real money won't buy you any currency, item or booster in that game. All you can pay for are character slots (many to start with), stash tabs (pretty decent by default), decorative pets, some fancy textures and particle effects. If E: D goes that way, I would definitely purchase it. And if its cash shop turns out to be transparent, up-front and strictly cosmetic, instead of the commonly encountered toxic messes of shady advertising and Trotters Independent Traders business practices, I would actually buy me some cool particle effects and bobbleheads

 

[Theaghan Black]

I agree with ubermick when he claims that C4C will affect negatively the players' behaviour.

I'm all for C4C as Frontier's profit method, but only if the developer is going to provide a way to separate them from hardcore players: as hardcore player I expect to be against stronger players, but I must be assured these ones have earned their "position" playing the game.

The main reason is the roleplaying ability of these players: by design ED should be called MMORPG instead of MMO (the real meaning of RPG is "role-playing game", not "game in which players gain XPs and can level up").

People who can buy ships with real money will not roleplay correctly as they are not risking to lose their virtual life (they are not going to think about their ship's history, to how hard they worked for it): so in front of some pirates ships threatening them they will not think twice about fighting them instead of surrendering or escaping. If we think about the inverse, hardcore traders will never try to escape or resist against the stronger pirate ship of a C4C user.

So in my opinion it's clear that this method is going to heavily affect the gameplay.

For economical reason FD should do it, but the C4C users should be treated like griefers: make them play against themselves.

 

[Adept]

ALL missions (as far as I am aware) are procedurally generated based on the conditions of the political/economic/NPC simulation (which itself is influenced by players actions and injected events.) So no end-game, no set missions (accept maybe live, one-off events).

For credits to have any real worth in the game, there will have to be recurring costs (maintenance/hanger rent/fuel/ammo/drones/insurance/other consumables) that get larger as your potential income goes up.

I think there was a reference to Frontier gamemasters tuning and effecting things on the fly when they get alers that a system or systems have reached truly unusual situations. Civil wars and such, with interventions from the big powers, I think.

 

[Squicker]

Initially there was no upgrade for differing backer tiers it was, "sorry KS is over so 200 quid please." As lots of people (understandably) baulked at this, the price went down until I, as a Founder, was being offered it for 50 quid. Still a fleecing if you ask me, I am never going to PAY to test a game, it's a salaried job role last time I checked. Pay 200 quid to do what is actually a laborious job on a game that's not even AAA? To say I find the idea counter-intuitive would be a politeness on my part, of a very high degree.

That all said, testing is indeed positive and I gladly entered the free ESO beta, which was very well run for the three sessions I was in. But it got to the point with FD that there was little or no test value they could gain from more alpha buyers because they were out of time.

This combined with the constant 'threat' (for want of a better word) of alpha definitely ending and it being the last chance (however I long ago openly said I would not believe a further word that passed FD's lips on the matter) and yet suddenly there being another 'one last' opportunity to buy made it quite obviously a cash grab. And here we are again, half-price insurance (I don't go nearly as far as calling that P2W but FD have set their stall out there) and yet another last grab for money this weekend! Obviously no one is going to buy into alpha this weekend - unless they had their mind removed with a spoon - because by FD's own admission, Premium Beta is right on us. So there's no value for a consumer, or for FD in terms of testing.

It's all about the money honey.

Now, not to say the game itself will not be good, I have a good feeling about it from what I have seen, but the company behind it, pfft, I'd not trust them to arrange a trip to the corner shop for me, I'm sure it would involve some sort of time limited (and yet simeltaneously never-ending) fleecing for me. Sort of the 'honest john's of the gaming world! "Alrite geezer, honestly this deal won't be 'ere tomorrow, you need to be in on it today! I'll tell yer wot, half-price insurance if you give me the readies now!!"

Ghastly and embarrassing behaviour, I really wonder what made FD stoop that low. I now envisage D Braben, a man who made one of the great games of my childhood, as a sort of Swiss Tony meets Phil Mitchell character. I only let him have the Swiss Tony bit as I need to keep my memories intact by not allowing him to be all bad ;-)

All my personal opinion of course and YMMV.

Where do you get this from? Alpha access costs £200 and always has, even as far back as the original kickstarter campaign. It's true that backers from lower tiers are offered discounts appropriate to their earlier contributions if they elect to upgrade to the alpha tier but that's not gouging. OK, it's using a bit of hype to recruit as many alpha testers as possible for the next phase. But that's a positive strategy in order to ensure that the game gets throughly tested. Surely no one with any interest in seeing the game relatively bug-free at launch could have any problems with that?

 

[tooterfish]

There's no need to be so negative about it, alpha access isn't a right. So £200 is too rich for you, well same here, hardly a big deal. You're not actually paying to test the game, you're paying to support the game... the rest is just a bonus.

And they couldn't exactly turn around and offer alpha for cheaper after the kickstarter ended, that'd just alienate and possibly **** off the original backers. Hardly fair on them.

At the end of the day we all get the same game. The £1000 backers, the £200 backers, the £90 backers, the £35 backers... same bloody game. So again, so being so negative, you'll give yourself an ulcer.

 

[Adept]

Can a game have cash shop and still be fun to play? I would mention Path of Exile as a commendable example, because even though it is a free-to-play game, and it runs on their servers, they've allowed people to actually have loads of fun without pushing them into spending cash. And no, real money won't buy you any currency, item or booster in that game. All you can pay for are character slots (many to start with), stash tabs (pretty decent by default), decorative pets, some fancy textures and particle effects. If E: D goes that way, I would definitely purchase it. And if its cash shop turns out to be transparent, up-front and strictly cosmetic, instead of the commonly encountered toxic messes of shady advertising and Trotters Independent Traders business practices, I would actually buy me some cool particle effects and bobbleheads

World of Tanks is squarely in the freemium model, and it's an awesome game. The transaction possibilities haven't bothered me once, and I think I've put in about a triple-A title's worth over the years.

 

[Adept]

It's amazing how Squicker manages to spin the alpha discount _we_kept_asking_for_ and eventually got as a negative thing... a scam even.