Printable View
TLDR: Yes it is p2w, BUT it is simply necessary to accomodate for irl and a good source of revenue. Would save us all a lot of time if admins/people against it just admit this ^^
If you have problems with it, get teamviewer and run the risk of getting deleted when the devs find out.
Would you care to source your claim of your definition of p2w is the only acceptable (Im nto trying to be douchey but I am curious cause you seem to be convinced there is one standard definition that everyone uses)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I dont think sitting was a bad idea when for the intended purpose as it was implented. As a option instead of using vac mode but as it progressed further its been "OH i cant be at this time to attack ill set sitter"
Ty that was basically my whole point as well. Its p2w, its not going anywhere and I'm perfectly fine with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
I am a paying member. I can have Korp play my account for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I am a non-paying member. I can not have Korp play my account for me.
I will clarify a few things:
1) Pay 2 win would be something more along the lines of, 10 credits for an item that gives you things like: land, troops, thieves, wizards, scientists, gold, food, runes, faster build time, shorter army attack time, bonus to BE, increased income, increased population, etc. Using a sitting credit so that you personally don't need to log in is not providing a resource or something that is not attainable by no other means; you can attain the benefit provided by a sitting credit by just logging in yourself.
2) When a province uses sitting, it will take a minimum of 1 day from the 21 days that are allotted to that province.
3) We are looking to change sitting for next age to prevent the abuse of abandoning provinces and inviting a new owner with 21 new days of sitting available.
I saw a post referencing a 'bug that already occurred': the change had not been implemented at that time. The announcement was made that it would go live shortly, not that it was live. However, I can confirm that it is live at this time.
To respond to your first point:
I agree there are certain degrees, but the fact remains that sitting gives you an advantage over KDs that don't. KDs that don't use it burn out faster, suffer more from starvation/MS (if you have someone to monitor a prov all night to check for possible GA farms or MV MS). I mean, if it really didn't have any advantage, people wouldn't pay for it :P
People pay for things that don't give advantages in terms of playability all the time. Like cosmetic fluff. Essentially here it's pay to be able to share the workload. When you abuse it in ways other than sitting someone who just can't make a wave etc. it's cool but someone abusing it to gain advantage by playing two provinces while one doesn't really have an owner (if that's what happened - haven't been paying too much attention to what was going on myself) leaves a sour taste imo.
You attain the possibility to play two provinces (only for a shorter duration yes) which is only attainable by paying for sitting. How do I play two provinces without paying for credits?Quote:
1) Pay 2 win would be something more along the lines of, 10 credits for an item that gives you things like: land, troops, thieves, wizards, scientists, gold, food, runes, faster build time, shorter army attack time, bonus to BE, increased income, increased population, etc. Using a sitting credit so that you personally don't need to log in is not providing a resource or something that is not attainable by no other means; you can attain the benefit provided by a sitting credit by just logging in yourself.
1. Again it does tho as your paying for someone else to play ,not because your away for vacation ,but just because you got armies coming in at a bad time.Vacation mode or sitting was fine for those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
2.Atleast thats something
3. You already admit its going to be abused and will be so why implement it now instead of next age with changes so you could eliminate it atleast alittle with filters or blocks to combat the abuse ? why rush this out.
That abuse has nothing to do with the change.Quote:
3. You already admit its going to be abused and will be so why implement it now instead of next age with changes so you could eliminate it atleast alittle with filters or blocks to combat the abuse ? why rush this out.
I'm not shooting this down because I think the decision was pragmatic. Serious players with RL issues are the target here. From the standpoint of a player in the sub-tier, it won't change how we play.
I'm seeing more concern from the competent war tier, and that should be the focus for problem solving. If I were to guess, it's that the majority of the rather serious war tier are tipping on the edge of a casual core with a few serious players in leadership. The reason it's a slippery slope here is because dedicated populace in this arena varies dramatically. Thus, a comparable war kingdom that has a higher number of sitter willing players can operate in micro much more effectively.
By contrast, in my arena, I'm pressed just to find an active to ask if I can sit for them. Totally different dynamic.
Edit: top tier already likes this change for good reason.
Matija is correct, renaming your province does not 'provide an advantage' yet people pay for that.
Bart - your point is valid in a different context. Sitting provides an advantage in 2 ways: 1) allows a user that opportunity to not log in yet still have their province be growing in time, as opposed to paused in time via Vacation Mode; and 2) the Kingdom benefits from having a province with a user that can log in. The use of sitting provides these advantages. But to argue that sitting provides advantages over Kingdoms that don't use it is not an accurate statement. A Kingdom that does not use sitting can perform the same amount of actions & functions that a Kingdom using sitting could by just being more active. This is the crux of the argument that seems most people are not grasping. The use (or paying) of sitting in no way provides any bonus or advantage that can not be attained by just being more active; whereas a true pay to win item will provide something that can not be attained via any other method than buying it, i.e. see my post above.
I feel BoH's argument holds most validity in that the bonuses/advantages the use of sitting provides are out of game for the user that is activating the item. The benefits the Kingdom and Province receive could have been achieved by the owner just being more active. So I think his statement of 'pay 2 be lazy' is most accurate.
How can you attain playing several provinces with one account without paying? And how is not a bonus not needing to have as many people around as your competition?Quote:
The use (or paying) of sitting in no way provides any bonus or advantage that can not be attained by just being more active; whereas a true pay to win item will provide something that can not be attained via any other method than buying it, i.e. see my post above.
"Pay to be lazy" is actually by definition pay to win.
Perhaps a better way to look at this to more clearly understand the difference: You are paying for the convenience of not having to "insert one of the following" (log in, wake up, take a long bathroom break at work, find somewhere that has a usable internet connection, interrupt family dinner time, excuse yourself from an event). There is no measurable bonus/advantage to using sitting over just logging in yourself. It is a item for convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder TA
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder TA
This is in no way an admission that the feature will be abused. There has been abuse of the current mechanics taking place that we intend to do something about. This change to sitting does not affect the abuse that is being talked about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder TA
It should be noted, as I haven't seen it said in response to these arguments: it seems as though anyone using this argument seems to think that the use of sitting '2 be lazy' is something that can be done for the entire age...this is just simply foolish to use as an argument. The idea that "I'm going to set sitter every time I go to sleep so my province is super active and awesome yeah go pay 2 win ftw" is asinine. This could be done a max of 21 times. You'll be left to play your own account on your own accord for the next 7-9 weeks by yourself without the opportunity at all to use sitting when actually needed for the rest of the age.Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija
In no way is 'pay to be lazy' equivalent to 'pay to win'. If you actually think so, I would request an example.
Let's separate this for clarity and I'll do my best to help you understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
How can you attain playing several provinces with one account without paying? - Please clarify what you're actually asking me to explain, and I will.
And how is not a bonus not needing to have as many people around as your competition? - I feel like there is a spelling error or missing word so I'll let you fix this before responding.
Examples: paid experience bonuses in different games which let you play less but get to a certain goal faster. Paid task queuing in similar games that also let you have to log in less. Every paid shortcut that lets you not have to play to attain something (less work = lazy).
Let's say, in Sports you have 2 kinds of dope: stuff that enhances ur max, and stuff that reduces recovery time. Paid sitting is comparable to the last :)
Sorry David. i did misread number 3 .
Doesnt change my views on this tho. still thing its a bad idea just as for the reasons MyNameIsMatija stated
You claim that people are able to play multiple provinces without paying. I want you to explain how is that possible? Sitting you get to legally multi but how do you do it without paying?Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
A kingdom that chose to pay for sitting to cover up their inactive people is no doubt a bonus over the enemy that chose not to pay for sitting. So how is it not a bonus?
Pay for experience is an in game resource, which is not the same, and fits my example of pay to win i.e. paying for land, gold, food, runes etc, in game resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija
Paying for a bigger task queue is a good example of pay to be lazy, but not pay to win if your comparison is directly relating the convenience of not having to log in when your buildings would finish to put new buildings under construction. In this scenario it would be similar to Sitting by comparison and also does not fit the description of pay to win because the same results could be achieved by just logging in more, this would be pay to be lazy and does not qualify as pay to win.
Your last sentence does not actually provide an example of anything specific so I will ignore that.
The reasons Matija just stated don't support the argument, see my post above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder TA
I don't understand this at all, but from what I do it does not appear to support your argument at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart of Sparta
It more appears that your not seeing the issues almost everyone in this thread is sadly.No need to continue trying to explain it. We see it as pay to play which is what was said the game wouldnt go to .Much like the clone has that no one plays.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
More specific example: I pay to get 1000 gold when if I logged in at a certain time I could have atteined the same. I was lazy so I didn't. I rather paid for it.
Would like to emphasize I do support this change fully :)
Just cant deny its a p2w feature (but a necessary one IMO).
I don't recall claiming people are able to play multiple provinces without paying. Perhaps you can be more specific?Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
I should take this time reject the notion that sitting is a form of legally multi'ing. I don't understand how you come to this conclusion, please enlighten me such that I can understand your position on this and can help you see the correct point of view.
Are you suggesting that an "inactive" can set sitting? or that Kingdom A has the ability for their 'inactive' players to set sitting for the entire age?Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Neither scenario is a valid example of how sitting can be used, but if it was theoretically possible, the change we have made to sitting does not affect either of these.
For any future scenarios you (or anyone for that matter) would like to present, please keep in mind, and specifically reference how the change of sitting minimum time from 24 hours to 1 hour (that will take a minimum of 1 day off the 21 day limit) results in an advantage (and specifically state said advantage/bonus) that cannot be attained by just logging in more yourself.
I think something people are taking for granted is that people aren't "choosing to be lazy" because they're not available to play. As if it's reasonable expectation that a person should be willing and able to play utopia at a moment's notice 24/7. I'm not going to play at work. Not because I'm lazy. Not because I don't care. Not because I'm a noob scrub that doesn't know how to play. It's because I don't really care to get fired over a meaningless online game and have my life get wrecked because I needed to send my army out.
If you're trying to make this game more casual friendly, you really need to get this mentality out of your head
Ok let's try something different. Pay to win can be translated to also mean "The more I pay the more likely chance I have to win".Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder TA
In what scenario can this specific feature that is limited to 21 uses qualify as something that could satisfy the argument that, the more I use this the more likely chance I have to win when the non-paying alternative is to log in more to 'receive' the same 'advantages'?
An accurate scenario of pay to win would be offering an item that provides land or gold, with which the more you buy the more likely chance you have to win because non-paying members can not attain this land or gold. Before anyone tries to correlate this to "If I pay to have someone sit me they can attack or plunder and get land or gold when I wouldn't otherwise have done if I didn't have them sit me", this is not an example of how sitting is pay to win, this is an example of the opportunity the account owner could have also attained by logging in themselves.
How is this possible in Utopia?Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsMatija
We do have other plans in the pipeline to make the game more casual friendly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
You are right, the "choosing to be lazy" phrase is stereotyping all the situations that are being used as examples. Your statement does emphasize the fact that sitting is a feature of convenience, and now makes it more plausible for someone in that specific situation that can not log in during a specific period of time that is less than 24 hours long to use, with the understanding that it can not be used more than 21 times in an age that will last 60-90 days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
You claimed you can achieve the same thing without paying as you can do with paying.
How hard can it be to understand the approach? If you pay you get the ability to play 2 provinces if you do the same thing without paying you would be deleted.
Do inactive people less permissions in-game than other players? Well, reasoanbly most people would use sitting when only in war cause thats when activity is most desireable. Its not just thereotically possible currently its possible to sit an account the whole age as by your own admission as you have said you will correct that abuse.
Well either way you opinions seem to be set in stone and you refuse to see any other POV i mean, lol "can hlep you see the correct point of view"
You can hit for a lot of gains or steal etc. You asked for an example that would show pay to lazy = pay to win not an example of something possible in Utopia.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
Anyway I'm just messing, we could honestly go on like this forever but sitting has been in the game and this feature is not a change. I see this limitation removal as a quality of life improvement because the real limit (21 days) is still there.
This new feauture will have that effect, people that dont care for being online at one point will just pay for someone else to do it. Thats the difference when you can set it down as short as one hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
¨
I dont think sitting intself is essentially bad as it was when it was originally added. Then function was "I am going away but dont want to vac mode" now it will be "I cant make that one attack I will set sitter"
I think we are getting a bit lost in an argument about definitions. I'm not sure it matters what "pay to win" means - I think the issue is effectively "is this change a good idea".
I take the point that the new feature doesn't provide anything that is not available without it, ie it is possible not to go to sleep for more than 1hr 50 mins during wars and therefore not miss a tick. However, we could take that argument to the extreme with this hypothetical: let's say the game gave out a big land / honour / gc (whatever) advantage if you, say, were logged in every 15 minutes to press a button without missing a slot for X RL days straight. It is possible for someone to do that, but if X is big enough then it is pretty unlikely to happen without xlogging. Now, if we said you can also pay to get that same bonus, it seems to me that according to the argument above this would be a "outside-game benefit", that benefit being you living a life / not being ill through sleep deprivation etc. So I think there must be a point at which the negative connotations around being able to pay for a benefit apply, even if the game benefit is available to those who don't pay. I'm not saying that your sitting change is anything like this example, but I am making the point that the "pay to win" definition referred to above may well be the "correct" definition but I am not sure that it encapsulates everything that one might want to avoid.
Hopefully most players (ie ignoring top tier and some other very active people scattered around the server) do actually sleep more than 1 hr 50 mins during wars. If that is a fair assumption, that means they are not there for every tick during war, so there is a game advantage to paying to have someone sit your province during the times that you are not there during war. I do accept the point that this argument also applies to invites and to the 24 hour version of sitting (although personally I think those are different in degree - I can explain why but don't want to diverge right now).
IMO this thread should be debating whether it positive for the game to provide this new/modified advantage to those willing to pay for it, rather than what the technical definition of pay to win is.
On one hand, you can argue that paying shouldn't give the advantage. On the other, you can say that it might help the game in the sense that it is possible to play well without spending all your time here.
Personally, I am struggling to see why it will help the game because I think if anything, it will gradually lead to more and more pressure on people to either be here or pay for someone else to be here. [ EDIT: I accept that it will help players who are in the very competitive KDs who already expect people to be here nearly constantly during war, and it may help those KDs recruit and retain players].
I would be interested to hear from the Devs what the rationale for the change is - why do you think it is positive for the game? I've seen a lot of responses about why it isn't pay to win, but I haven't seen anything about why it is a good change (genuine apologies if I missed it - already 8 pages on this...)
To Chris121s point, I'm of the mind this may attract retired players. It's an increment to the devs effort to reduce playing time and make the game playable with less logging. I can respect this in its genesis in that we might need to see this thing get legs before we see the big picture.
I agree with Steel/korp from the competitive standpoint I play. This however doesn't make me feel cheated, just that the most formidable will be more so.
I feel the sentence in bold text is untrue. The ability to pay for a sitting credit DOES PROVIDE A RESOURCE that is not attainable by other means. That resource is time. As this is a tick based game the ability to pay to have another user access your province to do certain things at specific times because the account holder is unable to for what reason provides an advantage otherwise not attainable had the sit credit not been purchased and used.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidC
This is by definition Pay 2 Win.
With that said, I support this change and have always supported sitting as it is a useful tool to ensure the kingdom get the best out of my province. In the past I have set sitter for 24hrs then due to unforeseen circumstances I found myself unable to log in for a period of time after the sitting finished. Had I been able to cancel sitting earlier to do certain things or re-start sitting again earlier a few wars would have have different results.
Sitting has and always will be pay to win. Its just a masked form of it so it isn't obvious at first
EDIT: just like to add that sitting is/would be the only pay to win feature that is beneficial to the game(I dont mention paid invites here because i dont think that feature is pay to win :)
I agree with your premise. Of course it is a P2W feature. I think some people may have spent too much time in a 'lawyer' mentality, where it's all about the definition and twisting wording, not about what's actually true, to 'get' a simple common sense point that is pretty obvious to other people - a not uncommon mentality among top players I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by brickwolfman
I do not know whether it is a good thing. It's no good for casual players as they are unlikely to drop money on the game. Hence it's not aimed at casuals at all. 21 wave times over the course of an age is enough to make a substantial difference in the war tier though. Maybe it will be good for monarchs of casual or 'ordinarily active' kingdoms with big ambitions and a willingness to spend on creds. Of course it is perfect for the top kingdoms as I expect they hope it will help them with burn out.
I am probably against it, simply because in my opinion previous changes applied that have taken the game fundamentally further away from the original concept of 'meet strangers, work with them as a team, become friends, gang up on other people and reinforce those social bonds' has had a negative effect on the total of the actual numbers playing. Sitting with a min day is one thing, sitting with a 1 hr min time is another entirely.
One could see a situation where the 'normal standard' for a mid range kingdom changes from 'army in army out but RL comes first' to 'army in army out with no exceptions, if you are not prepared to pay, then DDD'. But sometimes they just quit.
On the other hand Strato may be right that it will attract retired players back in, and then if it doesn't change expected standards in kingdoms overall, it would be a positive. Hard to predict.
At the end of the day these two own the game, they are going to do whatever they want to do and will have discussed it with their own game circle. There's not a whole lot of point giving our opinions. If they wanted our opinions they would have asked for it before implementation. They don't want our opinion and as owners that is their judgement call.
They want to do the right thing by the game, whether it's the right decision or not will be shown in results.
And these things are up to the good nature of the player - toot toot- as a prolific kingdom hopper I've provided many invites to kingdoms in the past to compensate, and sometimes overcompensate, for my departure.
I like purchasing the meter for undisciplined kingdoms so they can take a step toward a better understanding.
Sitting might be used for evil in certain circles but my intentions will always be for the improvement of the base.
meh pay2win feature for the top, and for war kingdoms its all about who can be more organised in setting sitter on the provinces that won't stay awake all night, so starving etc, is impossible, if you want to keep players in the game, dont just cater for the top....
If you want to keep this feature of 1hr sittings, at least limit it to the original 21 days and make 1hr sitting count just as 24hrs, so they can max do it 21 times over an age, this won't screw the current sitting and won't give an unfair advantages in the long run.
I get the idea of letting people have a nice dinner etc without having to excuse themselves, but you should also reward the players that remain active and play their own province by putting in the time.
And for crying out loud, remove the damn explore thing for 5/6 province KDs so their pool is a lot smaller, right now you start an age with 5/6 and fill it up half way when your cows are in place and off you go....
Great post. By far the best one of this thread my own included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris121
If this does put pressure on people to either be here or pay for someone else to sit, I think that kind of fits the game description (A strategy game for hardcore players). Would it be good for the game? I think a higher level of play or standard of play would be good. It would be better for me that's for sure. Will it put more money into the game? Hell yeah, and that would be good too. I like the direction David and JayZ have taken thus far and I think with more revenue they could make more improvements (costly ones like server! Oops!) and marketing.