SE Please implement a Chonoscroll/PLEX system in FFXIV: ARR

[Shougun]

It wont work exactly as intended - lovely complete harmony and perfect market balancing.

p2w (pay to win) is annoying - regardless of what people want to say, this idea will introduce that in a legalized way.

At least with just RMT existing as now the p2w method is not SE approved.

Supporting RMT only accelerates RMT - Blizzard proved that.

[Abriael]

I played diablo 3 .. conclusion, this is a bad idea.

The two methods have *nothing* in common.

It wont work exactly as intended - lovely complete harmony and perfect market balancing.

It worked as intended elsewhere.

p2w (pay to win) is annoying - regardless of what people want to say, this idea will introduce that in a legalized way.

Pay to win indicates a situation in which whoever pays can access gameplay options that people that don't pay don't have access to.

It obviously doesn't apply to this case.

[Shougun]

The two methods have *nothing* in common.



It worked as intended elsewhere.



Pay to win indicates a situation in which whoever pays can access gameplay options that people that don't pay don't have access to.

It obviously doesn't apply to this case.

No p2w doesnt mean just that. If you can play the game at 1/10000 the rate you can access all the options but you will not win compared to someone else.

To "win" you need to pay.

When you introduce p2w, your own RMT system, you will devalue the currency and thus inflate prices. Anyone who doesnt pay to win will therefore play the game at a slower rate.

[axemtitanium]

No p2w doesnt mean just that. If you can play the game at 1/10000 the rate you can access all the options but you will not win compared to someone else.

To "win" you need to pay.

When you introduce p2w or your own RMT system you will devalue the currency and thus inflate prices. Anyone who doesnt pay to win will therefore play the game at a slower rate.

A PLEX system specifically combats inflation and is self-regulating such that if people who don't take part in it will be unaffected by it. Please read my original post for why that is.

[A_Hortensia]

A PLEX system specifically combats inflation and is self-regulating such that if people who don't take part in it will be unaffected by it. Please read my original post for why that is.

A lot of these concerned people aren't so much concerned about inflation or how it'll affect the in-game market.

They are mostly concerned with someone paying real money to get ahead in the game.

Everyone on both sides agrees that RMT cheaters/botters/spammers and economy manipulation are bad.

[Shougun]

A PLEX system specifically combats inflation and is self-regulating such that if people who don't take part in it will be unaffected by it. Please read my original post for why that is.

No it doesnt combat inflation.

It only creates a limit in the direction you can RMT. You can use real money to buy in game currency. The limit is you cant use in game currency to buy real money - you can only use it to buy time.

Its an obstfucation of buying in game currency from an RMT but it is still buying in game currency.

And it is untrue that people not taking part in it will not be affected.

You are introducing a new method of passing around currency - that flow will go AROUND those players who dont take part. Effectively minimizing their ratios compared to those who are using real money.

End result meaning - p2w has been legalized in game.

[Abriael]

No p2w doesnt mean just that. If you can play the game at 1/10000 the rate you can access all the options but you will not win compared to someone else.

To "win" you need to pay.

And in fact in this system you don't NEED To pay at all. People that don't pay can still get exactly the same items, exactly the same statistics as everyone else.

To have a pay to win system you have to NEED to pay in order to win. Ergo, it only applies where people that pay have access to statistical bonuses and items that othr players can't access.

When you introduce p2w, your own RMT system, you will devalue the currency and thus inflate prices. Anyone who doesnt pay to win will therefore play the game at a slower rate.

False.

You don't devalue the currency at all. The amount of currency on the market remains exactly the same. While some people's buying power will increase, some other's will decrease, the end result is the same.

This system decreases inflation as it cuts the earnings of RMT, with it their budget, and with their budget their workforce. Less workforce means that they can inject less currency in the market, causing less inflation.

On top of that, it adds a further gil sink because transactions are taxed.

It's funny how people continue to sustain the theory that it will devalue the currency when it flies in the face of both economical theory and both of the real examples we already have in place.

Of course you can swear to god that the sky is yellow with green polka dots. But that doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Shougun]

And in fact in this system you don't NEED To pay at all. People that don't pay can still get exactly the same items, exactly the same statistics as everyone else.

To have a pay to win system you have to NEED to pay in order to win. Ergo, it only applies where people that pay have access to statistical bonuses and items that othr players can't access.

Those who dont pay are actually making things worse. They are supporting p2w by farming and then selling their farm to someone who used real money. Basically you become an RMT shop and non paying players become your Chinese workshop farmers.

And you really are ignoring or dont get the pay to win meaning. If you can pay to play better, it is a pay to win system. If you can use real money to get ahead, it is a pay to win system. This idea IS a pay to win system.

False.

You don't devalue the currency at all. The amount of currency on the market remains exactly the same. While some people's buying power will increase, some other's will decrease, the end result is the same.

It's funny how people continue to sustain the theory that it will devalue the currency when it flies in the face of both economical theory and both of the real examples we already have.

You increase reasons to farm - increases currency, devalues currency, inflation on prices.
True.

Also in your own words you have labeled this system pay to win. "While some people's buying power will increase, some other's will decrease". This is not acceptable.

[Abriael]

Those who dont pay are actually making things worse. They are supporting p2w by farming and then selling their farm to someone who used real money. Basically you become an RMT shop and non paying players become your Chinese workshop farmers.

You assume that those people need to farm as much gil as humanly possible, like the gil farmers do. In reality that's completely false, as all they need to farm is what they need to get their monthly item. The influence on the market is negligible, and comparing them to "chinese workshop farmers" is an extremization that voids your argument of any validity.

And you really are ignoring or dont get the pay to win meaning. If you can pay to play better, it is a pay to win system. If you can use real money to get ahead, it is a pay to win system. This idea IS a pay to win system.

Actually, having been a game writer for 15 years and having discussed this kind of topic a ton of times with developers, industry professionals and other writers alike, yeah, I have a very clear idea of what "pay to win" means.

According to your overly simplistic definition *every* MMORPG can be defined pay to win one way or another. Including FFXIV 1.0. Of course, that's not the case.

My definition is the definition widely accepted by the industry, and as such the only one that counts, unless you're in the business of calling things with the wrong name for shock value.

It is amusing, though, to see how many people still apply the concept inappropriately to games in which paying doesn't give any sizable advantage over those that don't pay.

Also in your own words you have labeled this system pay to win. "While some people's buying power will increase, some other's will decrease". This is not acceptable.

You misinterpreted it (probably intentionally).

People whose buying power increases - Those that sell PLEX/Chronoscrolls, because they have more gold.
People whose buying power decreases - Those that buy PLEX/Chronoscrolls, because they have less gold.
Everyone else is unaffected, because, inflation-wise the other two categories cancel each other out.

Again. You're making up theories that conflict with economical theory, and that have already been proven wrong by reality in two distinct games.

[Shougun]

You assume that those people need to farm as much gil as humanly possible, like the gil farmers do. In reality that's completely false, as all they need to farm is what they need to get their monthly item. The influence on the market is negligible, and comparing them to "chinese workshop farmers" is an extremization that voids your argument of any validity.



Actually, having been a game writer for 15 years and having discussed this kind of topic a ton of times with developers, industry professionals and other writers alike, yeah, I have a very clear idea of what "pay to win" means.

According to your overly simplistic definition *every* MMORPG can be defined pay to win one way or another. Including FFXIV 1.0. Of course, that's not the case.

My definition is the definition widely accepted by the industry, and as such the only one that counts, unless you're in the business of calling things with the wrong name for shock value.

It is amusing, though, to see how many people still apply the concept inappropriately to games in which paying doesn't give any sizable advantage over those that don't pay.



You misinterpreted it (probably intentionally).

People whose buying power increases - Those that sell PLEX/Chronoscrolls, because they have more gold.
People whose buying power decreases - Those that buy PLEX/Chronoscrolls, because they have less gold.
Everyone else is unaffected, because, inflation-wise the other two categories cancel each other out.

Again. You're making up theories that conflict with economical theory, and that have already been proven wrong by reality in two distinct games.

I've been Jesus since the begining, de facto my word is law. -_-

I don't care about your background - it means nothing to your actual logic only to the probability of such.

And your definition of pay to win is not the industry standard. The definition entails the ability to take competitive advantage by using real money.

As you are attempting to do to me, I can do the same.

You misunderstand everything, you dont know economy, its proven fact you are wrong.

There we are at crossroads.

I will always be against a system that involves ANY method of taking competitive advantage through use of real money - regardless of how you want to "define" it.