parasit

Additional Money Making

50 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Too pay 2 win.

Bah, no more pay to win than running two accounts, so I dismiss that as a valid reason why not to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Bah, no more pay to win than running two accounts, so I dismiss that as a valid reason why not to. 

I dismiss your dismissal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I dismiss your dismissal.

I dismiss your dismissal of my dismissal, and up you one challenge. 

Explain to me how this is more pay to win than running two accounts?

If I run two accounts I can spawn each account in, leave one in the depot/AB/hide in bushes/etc and play the other.

Upon death of the account I am using I immediately grab the second account in waiting and begin playing that account while the spawn down/spawn in timer expires on the first account, thus foregoing the spawn delay.

Sorry my friend the "pay to win" ship has already left the dock. 

What I propose is an instant money maker and is essentially already available in another form. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

I dismiss your dismissal of my dismissal, and up you one challenge. 

Explain to me how this is more pay to win than running two accounts?

If I run two accounts I can spawn each account in, leave one in the depot/AB/hide in bushes/etc and play the other.

Upon death of the account I am using I immediately grab the second account in waiting and begin playing that account while the spawn down/spawn in timer expires on the first account, thus foregoing the spawn delay.

Sorry my friend the "pay to win" ship has already left the dock. 

What I propose is an instant money maker and is essentially already available in another form. 

I have to agree with Kilemall entirely here. Pay to Win must be prevented in any possible way at ALL costs. Your statement about multiple accounts notwithstanding. Personally, while I believe in supporting the game, I have never been in favor of multiple accounts.

But the fact that the game feels that multiple accounts are allowable  and necessary does not mean that we should fully and happily embrace the Pay to Win culture. It's beyond ridiculous that in this game the winner should be the guy with the deepest pockets. If that's true, then why should anyone who isn't loaded even try to play at all? This is the kind of discussion they have had for years on the Star Citizen boards about development, where the big money folks pressure the devs to make the game push high end systems that only they can afford to own, and who cares if anyone else gets to play the game?

There are other ways that CRS could earn extra money.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple spawns per inf should be the norm. Not via running multiple instances of the game (that has performance issues that could also lag people, apparently), but in the same game instance, just like every single non-inf unit aside from fighter aircraft has now (crew positions). If tracking outside of a single AO/DO is difficult, require that all such spawns be within the same town (or some distance of each other, same spawn point, whatever).

A new account that allowed this... I think I would pay more for.

Spawn LMG. Hit a key to add "crew" Spawn rifle. Again, spawn rifle. You'd then control the 3 guys like switching crew on a tank/atg/etc. "1" run LMG to a good position to support the attack. "2" run 1 rifle to nearby LMG for support/ammo. "3" run rifle in closer to CP. If I notice ei, switch to LMG and spray that area. ei now concerned with LMG to flank. Switch back to 3, and advance rifle. you get the idea. This is not "pay to win." this is instantly increasing the number of inf in a given attack/defense, and those 2-4 (however many is practical) inf are operating in concert---because they are controlled by one person. We'd finally have 2/3-3/4 of all inf acting like they are following orders. Stay in that spot. OK.

Honestly, this should have been how inf was from the start. If a tanker gets 3-4 lives, so should an inf player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

I dismiss your dismissal of my dismissal, and up you one challenge. 

Explain to me how this is more pay to win than running two accounts?

If I run two accounts I can spawn each account in, leave one in the depot/AB/hide in bushes/etc and play the other.

Upon death of the account I am using I immediately grab the second account in waiting and begin playing that account while the spawn down/spawn in timer expires on the first account, thus foregoing the spawn delay.

Sorry my friend the "pay to win" ship has already left the dock. 

What I propose is an instant money maker and is essentially already available in another form. 

What makes two accounts far less pay 2 win is that the two accounts count against the whole side for spawning the entire time both are in, so even though the one account is active and the other is immediately accessible/active on switching, they counted as two and slowed down spawning by x fraction.

 

The Pay 2 Win option does not, you could even have an overpop with deeper pockets even beating on an underpop even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kilemall said:

What makes two accounts far less pay 2 win is that the two accounts count against the whole side for spawning the entire time both are in, so even though the one account is active and the other is immediately accessible/active on switching, they counted as two and slowed down spawning by x fraction.

 

The Pay 2 Win option does not, you could even have an overpop with deeper pockets even beating on an underpop even more.

From a team aspect you are right, from a individual POV, you are wrong. I still say the positives (for the individual) outweigh the negatives.

23 hours ago, Quincannon said:

I have to agree with Kilemall entirely here. Pay to Win must be prevented in any possible way at ALL costs. Your statement about multiple accounts notwithstanding. Personally, while I believe in supporting the game, I have never been in favor of multiple accounts.

But the fact that the game feels that multiple accounts are allowable  and necessary does not mean that we should fully and happily embrace the Pay to Win culture. It's beyond ridiculous that in this game the winner should be the guy with the deepest pockets. If that's true, then why should anyone who isn't loaded even try to play at all? This is the kind of discussion they have had for years on the Star Citizen boards about development, where the big money folks pressure the devs to make the game push high end systems that only they can afford to own, and who cares if anyone else gets to play the game?

There are other ways that CRS could earn extra money.

S!

And yet there are several pricing plans, with the more you pay, the more equipment you have access too. Pay to win. No difference. Unless the "free accounts" don't count against spawning for the whole side as well. 

Anything other than EVERYONE pays $xx.xx a month and gets access to EXACTLY the same equipment, no second accounts, etc is a form of PTW. All your doing is arguing varying shades of grey. 

Again I might add, nothing, and I repeat nothing, would generate as much revenue as the idea I posted. Period.

The rest of the ideas while they may seem "neat" might generate a few hundred bucks and take how much time to dev?

But I guess you two do not want to see CRS be able to afford moving the servers?

 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 1:29 PM, beposhad said:

После сложного рабочего дня можно зайти на сайт онлайн казино Вулкан тут без труда можно играть на реальные деньги, а поле выигрыша моментально выводить их на свою банковскую карточку Сбербанка. Это очень удобный сервис, много кто им уже начал пользоваться.

Приветствую, мой друг - this seems like spam for the Vulcan online casino;  unless you are pitching the idea of some kind of in-game casino or card-game where real money could change hands which idea has been pitched before - I think even a while ago CRS 1.0 had a link (from website, not game) to some kind of online poker site or ww2 card game thing. 

an ingame online casino building  (or multiples in large cities) could be cool - where players could gamble during Spawn Delay with CRS taking a cut.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sorella said:

Приветствую, мой друг - this seems like spam for the Vulcan online casino;  unless you are pitching the idea of some kind of in-game casino or card-game where real money could change hands which idea has been pitched before - I think even a while ago CRS 1.0 had a link (from website, not game) to some kind of online poker site or ww2 card game thing. 

an ingame online casino building  (or multiples in large cities) could be cool - where players could gamble during Spawn Delay with CRS taking a cut.  

google europe video game loot boxes.

loot boxes in many places have been classified as gambling and are banned or talks are in process for banning them in a lot of places.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=loot+boxes+gambling&t=ffab&ia=web

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

From a team aspect you are right, from a individual POV, you are wrong. I still say the positives (for the individual) outweigh the negatives.

And yet there are several pricing plans, with the more you pay, the more equipment you have access too. Pay to win. No difference. Unless the "free accounts" don't count against spawning for the whole side as well. 

Anything other than EVERYONE pays $xx.xx a month and gets access to EXACTLY the same equipment, no second accounts, etc is a form of PTW. All your doing is arguing varying shades of grey. 

Again I might add, nothing, and I repeat nothing, would generate as much revenue as the idea I posted. Period.

The rest of the ideas while they may seem "neat" might generate a few hundred bucks and take how much time to dev?

But I guess you two do not want to see CRS be able to afford moving the servers?

 

NOTHING would generate as much revenue? Seriously? Maybe some players would be willing to pay for a no spawn delay package. but others would never accept that some players could just pay to gain such a ridiculously overpowered advantage. What's next? Pay for faster capping? Pay for special ammunition? Pay for physical perks, such as less stamina usage? Where do we draw the line? In game play advantages for money are a really, really bad idea.

I agree with you about the fact that Multiple accounts are  a certain level of Pay to Win. I agree less about the packages that CRS sells, because those packages give a player access to a limited number of units, but not weak versions of what Premiere or Builders get.

There have been a lot of ideas floated for CRS to make money over the years. I admit I love the Amazon ads one. Personally, I used to suggest the concept of varying National uniforms, such as Polish, Romanian, Scottish.... People have their own favorite nationalities...I believe that these could sell... but it would be a lot of work, and CRS has never been much for mini transactions..

Actually, however, I believe that if CRS could gain the ability to let folks vary their subs  over time, it would help their revenue. In the past, if a player is a vet and wanted to come back but wanted to play for free for a temporary term, they could not play their previously Premium character. They had to create a second account for Free to Play. I know some players simply stopped playing because of this. Now most MMOs allow players to upgrade and downgrade their accounts as they need; and the only real change is the player's access for each particular time period. I think that if CRS can do this in the future, it would help greatly with player retention, and increase subs in the long run.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quincannon said:

NOTHING would generate as much revenue? Seriously? Maybe some players would be willing to pay for a no spawn delay package. but others would never accept that some players could just pay to gain such a ridiculously overpowered advantage. What's next? Pay for faster capping? Pay for special ammunition? Pay for physical perks, such as less stamina usage? Where do we draw the line? In game play advantages for money are a really, really bad idea.

I agree with you about the fact that Multiple accounts are  a certain level of Pay to Win. I agree less about the packages that CRS sells, because those packages give a player access to a limited number of units, but not weak versions of what Premiere or Builders get.

There have been a lot of ideas floated for CRS to make money over the years. I admit I love the Amazon ads one. Personally, I used to suggest the concept of varying National uniforms, such as Polish, Romanian, Scottish.... People have their own favorite nationalities...I believe that these could sell... but it would be a lot of work, and CRS has never been much for mini transactions..

Actually, however, I believe that if CRS could gain the ability to let folks vary their subs  over time, it would help their revenue. In the past, if a player is a vet and wanted to come back but wanted to play for free for a temporary term, they could not play their previously Premium character. They had to create a second account for Free to Play. I know some players simply stopped playing because of this. Now most MMOs allow players to upgrade and downgrade their accounts as they need; and the only real change is the player's access for each particular time period. I think that if CRS can do this in the future, it would help greatly with player retention, and increase subs in the long run.

 

Spawn delay or lack thereof is not game play, it's the anti-thesis of game play. It's the "let's make player who pay for the game, not be able to play the game" lazy fix for pop imbalance. 

I have already shown that PTW exists in this game. Everything else is just shades of grey. 

Maybe, just maybe, if CRS where to institute a spawn delay buy down package, they could use some of the revenue to finally come up with ways other than spawn delay to offset pop imbalance. 

Amazon adds? Seriously, if CRS was lucky that might generate $2.00 a month additional revenue. Even if we had 100,000 subscribers, and a click through rate of 1%, if the CPC is $.01, that equates to $10.00 of revenue. What a waste. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nc0gnet0 said:

Spawn delay or lack thereof is not game play, it's the anti-thesis of game play. It's the "let's make player who pay for the game, not be able to play the game" lazy fix for pop imbalance. 

I have already shown that PTW exists in this game. Everything else is just shades of grey. 

Maybe, just maybe, if CRS where to institute a spawn delay buy down package, they could use some of the revenue to finally come up with ways other than spawn delay to offset pop imbalance. 

Amazon adds? Seriously, if CRS was lucky that might generate $2.00 a month additional revenue. Even if we had 100,000 subscribers, and a click through rate of 1%, if the CPC is $.01, that equates to $10.00 of revenue. What a waste. 

OK first... unless you personally can change the mentality of the current generation of gamers... no one can 'fix' the pop imbalance in a non match open choice game like this. I have spent a LOT of time looking at a number of WWII games, and the exact same problem exists in pretty much every game. Most players want to play Germans/ Axis... CRS can't change that.

As far as a spawn delay package? I certainly wouldn't pay for it. Why? Well, let's tell our subscribers that they need to pay MORE to prevent spawn delay... I can pretty much guarantee many folks would want to know why premium subscribers don't have that Queue priority over Free to Play already. In a subscription model game, that is something that is expected to be taken into account when determining the monthly subscription prices... not done as an ad hoc add on.

And as I said, just because we have one exception to Pay to Win does NOT mean that we should embrace it, and make it regular accepted way of running the game. Maybe YOU don't have an issue with it, but many do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, madrebel said:

google europe video game loot boxes.

loot boxes in many places have been classified as gambling and are banned or talks are in process for banning them in a lot of places.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=loot+boxes+gambling&t=ffab&ia=web

 

So what's next, Kinder eggs are an entry drug to gambling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you play non-stop during a month starting everyday at 4am with 5:1 odds r to softcap map and you rage quit in the middle of campaign cause "ais" became harder to kill somehow... should be a penalty in your sub?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kilemall said:

So what's next, Kinder eggs are an entry drug to gambling?

not a fan myself, seems like a stretch to equate the two but wtf do i know?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, matamor said:

What if you play non-stop during a month starting everyday at 4am with 5:1 odds r to softcap map and you rage quit in the middle of campaign cause "ais" became harder to kill somehow... should be a penalty in your sub?

Did we win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, madrebel said:

not a fan myself, seems like a stretch to equate the two but wtf do i know?

 

 

Kind of pointing out how absurd it is to treat loot boxes as gambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jwrona said:

Did we win?

map says 'allied victory imminent' for about 59 days now. maybe not enough loot boxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep asking, but no one gives me an answer either.  Webpage says Allied Victory imminentf....but........:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Kind of pointing out how absurd it is to treat loot boxes as gambling.

There's been a lot of research on it. But it IS a form of gambling. You pay real money for a chance at something. Now if it was a given reward... i.e. for $10 you get a Sherman tank from a gold box... well that's an in game purchase... but a loot box says that you get a ,001% chance of getting that tank if you pay $10 to open it. People who really want that tank have to keep trying. Sure they get stuff with every box, but they have to gamble on every try that the reward they want will be in there.

It's been shown that this has big effect on minors who play in online games, as they already have poorer/less developed impulse control than adults.

So the real fact is that it's a form of perspective  as to  the reality of whether or not loot boxes fit the normal definition of gambling. Either way, they are a part of gaming that should never have arisen (IMO).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quincannon said:

There's been a lot of research on it. But it IS a form of gambling. You pay real money for a chance at something. Now if it was a given reward... i.e. for $10 you get a Sherman tank from a gold box... well that's an in game purchase... but a loot box says that you get a ,001% chance of getting that tank if you pay $10 to open it. People who really want that tank have to keep trying. Sure they get stuff with every box, but they have to gamble on every try that the reward they want will be in there.

It's been shown that this has big effect on minors who play in online games, as they already have poorer/less developed impulse control than adults.

So the real fact is that it's a form of perspective  as to  the reality of whether or not loot boxes fit the normal definition of gambling. Either way, they are a part of gaming that should never have arisen (IMO).

Rest of the world- here kid, have a beer, and don't drink too much and be stupid like your uncle.

US- OMG don't let kid ever touch lips to alcohol, therefore kid beelines to drinking parties and learns alcoholic behavior from their equally stupid friends.

 

Ya, our way is sooo good.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Quincannon said:

1) OK first... unless you personally can change the mentality of the current generation of gamers... no one can 'fix' the pop imbalance in a non match open choice game like this. I have spent a LOT of time looking at a number of WWII games, and the exact same problem exists in pretty much every game. Most players want to play Germans/ Axis... CRS can't change that.

2) As far as a spawn delay package? I certainly wouldn't pay for it. Why? Well, let's tell our subscribers that they need to pay MORE to prevent spawn delay... I can pretty much guarantee many folks would want to know why premium subscribers don't have that Queue priority over Free to Play already. In a subscription model game, that is something that is expected to be taken into account when determining the monthly subscription prices... not done as an ad hoc add on.

3) And as I said, just because we have one exception to Pay to Win does NOT mean that we should embrace it, and make it regular accepted way of running the game. Maybe YOU don't have an issue with it, but many do.

1) I do not accept that. If most players "want" to play Axis, change the equipment so that is no longer the case. Find balance. 

2) Yeah telling your subscribers they have to pay more for no spawn delay is worse than telling your subs that even though they paid for the game, they can't play it without waiting 30+ seconds each time they die. I see no difference here, sorry. 

3) You seem to have lost sight of the larger goal here, to raise money. Try it, raise some money, see how much money it raises, and get some much needed fix's done to the game in the process. When goals are met, if it is that undesirable, get rid of it, It really is that simple. 

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-11-23 at 11:43 AM, Quincannon said:



There are other ways that CRS could earn extra money.

S!

Images of XOOM in a speedo on all armour on over pop side.

automatically disappears with side balancing

could also be a cash transaction to remove.

;)

S!

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, nc0gnet0 said:

1) I do not accept that. If most players "want" to play Axis, change the equipment so that is no longer the case. Find balance. 

Nothing personal, But you apparently have very little idea of exactly how pervasive this attitude is across WWII games in general. I have talked to a lot of people. I have scoured message boards from other games. Talked to role players in tabletop RPGs even. I have reviewed articles on WWII fan gamer web sites.

I have found that there is an overwhelming majority of players who come into almost every WWII game with the intent of playing on the German/ Axis side before they even try the games. Many people don't want to play "the good guys" or they want to try the Tigers, or their friends play Axis. Most want to WIN, and they see the German side as a way to do that. Some are just tired of playing the Allies in most single player games. The reasons keep on coming.

Now maybe CRS will find a way to entice OUR population to even out a bit more someday. I truly hope so. But let's be honest. If CRS changed (nerfed) the Axis equipment  to make the Allies more enticing, they would lose the majority of the Axis player base. But they won't, and I certainly wouldn't want them to. It would be a terrible business decision.

I don't believe that any game will change the overall attitude of gamers who play WWII games in general. Most will always play German if given the chance. The balance that you mention has to exist within the overall player base for WWII games in general. Currently it does not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quincannon said:

Nothing personal, But you apparently have very little idea of exactly how pervasive this attitude is across WWII games in general. I have talked to a lot of people. I have scoured message boards from other games. Talked to role players in tabletop RPGs even. I have reviewed articles on WWII fan gamer web sites.

I have found that there is an overwhelming majority of players who come into almost every WWII game with the intent of playing on the German/ Axis side before they even try the games. Many people don't want to play "the good guys" or they want to try the Tigers, or their friends play Axis. Most want to WIN, and they see the German side as a way to do that. Some are just tired of playing the Allies in most single player games. The reasons keep on coming.

Now maybe CRS will find a way to entice OUR population to even out a bit more someday. I truly hope so. But let's be honest. If CRS changed (nerfed) the Axis equipment  to make the Allies more enticing, they would lose the majority of the Axis player base. But they won't, and I certainly wouldn't want them to. It would be a terrible business decision.

I don't believe that any game will change the overall attitude of gamers who play WWII games in general. Most will always play German if given the chance. The balance that you mention has to exist within the overall player base for WWII games in general. Currently it does not.

 

Not looking to nerf anybody. I want a fair fight. My reply was to your premise, that I don't even know is right. Not sure if your saying most players want to play axis because they have better equipment (which if was the case my reply applies) or they just want to play the "bad guys". 

Answer is simple, bring in the Russians.

Afterall, the french supply is completely borked (CRS still seems to think the french would have never developed better weapons throughout the war if they didn't fall). Hell, at least give them the maginot line, while widely viewed as a failure, it did force the [censored]'s to attack at a different place. 

 

Naazi's is censored?

Edited by nc0gnet0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.