Concerns About the Change to Sitting

[Band of Horses]

@Band of Horses
Hypothetically if I were sell a bot that can play your province for only $1 a night, will you still considered it as not P2W?
Because by your argument I'm still only trading real world currency ($1) for real world benefit (sleep).
In fact why stop only at night? Why not let the bot run my province 24 hrs a day, up to 21 days an age?

Your argument might sounds reasonable at first glance, but in fact its just a slippery slope towards real money trading.
Just like how you could save time farming loots by buying them using cash, you too can save time not sleeping by paying someone to sit your province instead.

So let's not pretend that this isn't an improvement to an already p2w feature of the game.

A bot that plays the game perfectly would be an unfair advantage over a human that is not infallible. My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

Standard play is Human vs Human. If using munkbot to augment your ability, it is cyborg vs human essentially. You're now proposing full AI vs human. Watson vs Ken Jennings was not a fair competition.



GW is right in summarizing that you're afraid your skill isn't enough to beat people.

I genuinely don't believe most of you know what pay to win is. You see quality of life improvements and any change from the norm as evil because you're playing a 20 year old game and are afraid of change.

[Korp]

I genuinely don't believe most of you know what pay to win is. You see quality of life improvements and any change from the norm as evil because you're playing a 20 year old game and are afraid of change.

What change? You been arguing that there is no change sitting has been around for awhile now? Also the game isnt 20 year sold unlike you played some super secret beta that only you had access too?

[MyNameIsMatija]

Oh BoH got burned. What's next?

[Band of Horses]

What change? You been arguing that there is no change sitting has been around for awhile now? Also the game isnt 20 year sold unlike you played some super secret beta that only you had access too?

Are you daft? My argument isn't that the sitting feature is still 24hrs minimum. I rounded up to the nearest decade, a bit of hyperbole look it up.

[Korp]

Are you daft? My argument isn't that the sitting feature is still 24hrs minimum. I rounded up to the nearest decade, a bit of hyperbole look it up.

You open up with a personal attack thatst how much value your arguments hold that you cant even keep it civil. Ironic that you off all people should talk about others being afraid though. :)

But its is, if your argument was that sitting is still 24 hours you would be correct.

Though its pointless to argue with you since you dont seem to be able to comprehend that not having players around isnt a pay2win feauture.

[Band of Horses]

You open up with a personal attack thatst how much value your arguments hold that you cant even keep it civil. Ironic that you off all people should talk about others being afraid though. :)

But its is, if your argument was that sitting is still 24 hours you would be correct.

Though its pointless to argue with you since you dont seem to be able to comprehend that not having players around isnt a pay2win feauture.

There is a difference between a personal attack and a question. If you genuinely think that my argument is that there is no change, I have to wonder if you're being silly; foolish (definition for you).

[drkzeraga]

A bot that plays the game perfectly would be an unfair advantage over a human that is not infallible. My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

[Korp]

There is a difference between a personal attack and a question. If you genuinely think that my argument is that there is no change, I have to wonder if you're being silly; foolish (definition for you).

So thats how your conduct yourself in real life as well, when someone doesnt share your opinion the first thing you do is ask if they are daft? ANd please it wasnt really a question, you are just skirting the area, you wouldnt have "asked" it if you didnt already think i was daft.

My original point was that this new sitting is no different than the old sitting system, which you just made again.

So you want to argue that this new change to the sitting isnt a new change but it is a new change but it isnt a new change? Your words "NO DIFFERENT" and how can there be a change if nothign is different?

[StratOcastle]

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

That's concise. Balanced and to the point.

[Band of Horses]

My argument is that both the new and old sitting are all p2w, which you seems to disagree with.

Also for the sake of argument what if I were to hire a goldfarmer from China and give him a set of instructions on how to play my province for me while I'm asleep? Does it still not counts as p2w for you? At what point do you draw the line?

The fact remains that you're paying money to gain an in-game benefit. It doesn't matter if the same benefit could have been obtained using other means. You paid said money, you gained said benefit. To me that exactly the definition of a p2w feature.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying its bad for the game. On the contrary I think its very good, especially for casual players like me. On more than 1 occasion I have been guilty of asking another kd mate to sit for me because I simply cannot stand waking up in the middle of yet another night to wave.

But did it ever cross my mind that what I was doing wasn't p2w? No! I'm knew exactly what I was doing. I'm simply buying the ingame benefit of having my army attack while I'm asleep.

So let's not kid ourselves that a feature is not p2w because its only a QOL improvement. That's just completely disingenuous bull****. The degree of benefit you obtained might differ, but its still p2w all the same.

I'm removing the fact that having someone else log your account in Utopia is against the rules. Just a hypothetical game, with a hypothetical goldfarmer (sorry I needed a minute to remove utopia and its rules.) The goldfarmer is a person, they are the intended human vs human interaction. There is no unfair advantage there. If you have ever played a truly p2w game you might understand a bit better. Lets say we've got an average player in utopia, we'll call him Anry. Anry wants to sleep at night so he hires this gold farmer to play his account at night based on his instructions. The goldfarmer does pretty much just as good as Anry when he plays his prov during the day. Anry's prov goes 1v1 with another prov lets call him Godly. Godly wakes up in the middle of the night and is a better player than Anry. Godly has an ungodly amount of crown and Anry has none. Who wins this 1v1? Sure as **** Godly does. If this was p2w anry could PAY TO WIN. You want to know what p2w would look like in this game? Anry could pay $100 and get one billion gc and despite Godly's superior skill, he couldn't beat the Anry.

An in-game benefit is not an advantage if the other side has the same opportunity without using it. IE I can stay awake and play my prov. The disadvantage I have in that situation is I lose sleep, that is out of game.

So thats how your conduct yourself in real life as well, when someone doesnt share your opinion the first thing you do is ask if they are daft? ANd please it wasnt really a question, you are just skirting the area, you wouldnt have "asked" it if you didnt already think i was daft.



So you want to argue that this new change to the sitting isnt a new change but it is a new change but it isnt a new change? Your words "NO DIFFERENT" and how can there be a change if nothign is different?

In real life if someone asks silly and or foolish things I ask them if they are daft. You yourself make intentionally silly or foolish posts, I would assume for your amusement. Asking for clarification on your posts is sometimes important.

If you truly are hurt by my question, then I am sorry.

The new sitting has no difference from old sitting ethically. There certainly is a change, you trying to twist my argument like that should be considered unethical though.

[drkzeraga]

I'm removing the fact that having someone else log your account in Utopia is against the rules. Just a hypothetical game, with a hypothetical goldfarmer (sorry I needed a minute to remove utopia and its rules.) The goldfarmer is a person, they are the intended human vs human interaction. There is no unfair advantage there. If you have ever played a truly p2w game you might understand a bit better. Lets say we've got an average player in utopia, we'll call him Anry. Anry wants to sleep at night so he hires this gold farmer to play his account at night based on his instructions. The goldfarmer does pretty much just as good as Anry when he plays his prov during the day. Anry's prov goes 1v1 with another prov lets call him Godly. Godly wakes up in the middle of the night and is a better player than Anry. Godly has an ungodly amount of crown and Anry has none. Who wins this 1v1? Sure as **** Godly does. If this was p2w anry could PAY TO WIN. You want to know what p2w would look like in this game? Anry could pay $100 and get one billion gc and despite Godly's superior skill, he couldn't beat the Anry.

Sure but I think your example is a little misleading. Let use a more fair example instead:

Both Amy and Bob are players of identical skill level, who are both unwilling to wake up in the middle of the night to attack.
The only difference is Amy pays for someone to sit for her, while Bob doesn't.
End result: Amy's army attacks, Bob's doesn't.

Can you understand that from Bob's perspective, Amy just basically used a p2w feature?

Also on a tangent, "having someone else log your account in Utopia" is against the rule, but having someone log your province isn't? Why is that so? What's the difference between the 2 actions if the in-game benefits are the same? Just because one's an in-game feature makes it ethically ok?

[Bishop]

Sure but I think your example is a little misleading. Let use a more fair example instead:

Both Amy and Bob are players of identical skill level, who are both unwilling to wake up in the middle of the night to attack.
The only difference is Amy pays for someone to sit for her, while Bob doesn't.
End result: Amy's army attacks, Bob's doesn't.

Can you understand that from Bob's perspective, Amy just basically used a p2w feature?

Also on a tangent, "having someone else log your account in Utopia" is against the rule, but having someone log your province isn't? Why is that so? What's the difference between the 2 actions if the in-game benefits are the same? Just because one's an in-game feature makes it ethically ok?

Your definition of p2w is wrong. For it to be p2w it must both offer an advantage and the mechanic/item must not be available to a non paying player. Anything that can be obtained by a non paying player by just playing cannot be p2w, by definition.

[Korp]

Do we have free sitting?

[Band of Horses]

Bishop just hit the nail on the head.

[Bishop]

Do we have free sitting?

You know fine well we don't. You can replicate it by playing therefore it doesn't fit the definition of p2w.