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.
Printable View
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.