Capt Warren Loly Posted August 27, 2013 Posted August 27, 2013 Hello, will this game be pay to play or free to play? If it is completly free then I may be less interested because that would mean pay to win and lots of kids.
admin Posted August 27, 2013 Posted August 27, 2013 Hello. We have already mentioned that the payment model is last thing we are thinking about at this stage. Most likely there will be two options Pay to Play like Guild Wars 2.. You pay once and play forever Free to play but without pay 2 win (Closer to LoL). We have a very strong opinion on this and are against pay to win in any form. 11
Samuel Adams Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 I like P2P It keeps people from having a ton of accounts and cross teaming. if you go F2P I think you will have way to many Crossteamers. 1
Thomas Blackwell Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 A good example of this is Minecraft. You pay once and that's it, however you can only have one character. I think a good way to approach it may be to merge the P2P of Minecraft with the character selection from EVE. You pay once and are allowed to have 2-3 captains on a single account. This way, depending on how Game Labs decide to swing Nations in game, you can limit accounts to one nation at the beginning, and the player will have to effect his in game reputation to change each of his captains allegiances.
Samuel Adams Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 That still won't cut out the the cross teaming unless you lock the nation that your on and make it so you have to Pay every account.
Samuel Adams Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 But again there are some rich people out there and still cross team but with this way you will at least slow it down.
Ink Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 what does cross teaming mean exactly? Spies of the opponent in your fleet? I hope there won't be PotBS port battle system, fleet engagement system has to be given to clans, so a clan leader have to decide what players should be in your fleet in a battle. So a spy will have a long way to be able to complete his mission, will it worth at all?
Samuel Adams Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Depends on what Cross teaming means to each. I want to know Naval Actions devs meaning of Cross Teaming.To me anyway is effecting 1 side when you are playing another side.Hence forth when you are playing British for example and you pvp ageist the British on your French toon.Or if you are British and you Port Battle on your French toon.
Johny Reb Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 what does cross teaming mean exactly? Spies of the opponent in your fleet? I hope there won't be PotBS port battle system, fleet engagement system has to be given to clans, so a clan leader have to decide what players should be in your fleet in a battle. So a spy will have a long way to be able to complete his mission, will it worth at all? I would hope that it contains both. Some sort of PB setup so that everyone in game has a chance to be a part of the action, and society arranged engagements as well. But how to implement that, I havn't thought much about. Crossteaming is gonna happen one way or another. If its prevented in the game somehow then they will infiltrate TS and do it from there.
Mirones Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 please move it to another discussion for crossteaming we dont know if it will even be needed in the end same like multi boxing for econ. i hope there will be some wort of item shop for non p2w stuff so i can suport to keep the servers up by trowing my money on the screen. yes i'm a whale deal with it.
Samuel Adams Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 Sorry about the crossteaming talk but it came up and I addressed it.That being said I hope it will not be P2W.
Mirones Posted March 19, 2014 Posted March 19, 2014 nah i just pointed it out because you creat a topic and then an internal subject switches the topic to a complet other point of discussion
MrPiggi Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I would agree with a P2P system. Whilst I enjoy the F2P model for some games as it allows me to try them before I invest in anything, for games that are unique and exclusive and that I know I have an interest in I would definitely prefer a P2P system. An Age of Sail game is exactly that - it is a unique niche in the market that will attract a specific type of gamer who has an interest in in this type of gameplay. For that, I think people would be prepared to pay a one-time fee to gain access. I too agree with some sort of EVE system where people are able to create 2 - 3 characters. Just to prevent the feeling that you have to buy more games to have more than one character. 1
Johny Reb Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I'd be fine with having to pay for the initial release. Thats not P2W IMO. Thats Pay 2 Have. P2W would be that you could only get certain OP ships in the shop. I also think it fine for them to sell just about anything in the shop as long as there is a way to get the items that matter in game.
CJFlint Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Hello. We have already mentioned that the payment model is last thing we are thinking about at this stage. Most likely there will be two options Pay to Play like Guild Wars 2.. You pay once and play forever Free to play but without pay 2 win (Closer to LoL). We have a very strong opinion on this and are against pay to win in any form. Speaking for myself I prefer only to pay once for the game itself. Exp packs or none pay to win items I don't mind paying for so much, so long there's allot of bang for your buck. I also would love to see a player ran economy. When I say that I mean everything ship building, ammo, powders, ship parts, out-fitting, port logistics/ defense.....as much as possible. 1
Samuel Adams Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 True CJ but there are a few post to where I am trying to get more people involved in a group and if it's F2P the same people will have 20 -30 accounts doing all the work I am trying to get everyone involved as far as helping each other out.In a game I play now it use to be P2P and everyone helped out everyone so that being said I like the P2P option.Plus it helps the devs put more into the game and maybe have some GM's on.I like the idea of pay once but it don't pay the bills. I want this game to have all the perks of a good mmo. Instead of having 3 people work on a game and don't reply to any good questions that players have.I am not rich but if they said $10-$20 a month I would be ok with that.
MrPiggi Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 True CJ but there are a few post to where I am trying to get more people involved in a group and if it's F2P the same people will have 20 -30 accounts doing all the work I am trying to get everyone involved as far as helping each other out.In a game I play now it use to be P2P and everyone helped out everyone so that being said I like the P2P option.Plus it helps the devs put more into the game and maybe have some GM's on.I like the idea of pay once but it don't pay the bills. I want this game to have all the perks of a good mmo. Instead of having 3 people work on a game and don't reply to any good questions that players have.I am not rich but if they said $10-$20 a month I would be ok with that. Lol, never thought I could see a paragraph composed of one sentence xD Although I prefer a P2P model for this game, I do agree that perhaps a F2P model will provide better sustained income. I would be more than happy to pay a little subscription fee (perhaps up to £10 or £15) for a few extra non-game breaking perks, like a % of extra gold/exp/whatever forms of currency the game will be based around. Guild Wars 2 is a decent model to look at though if you do go P2P. Buying once doesn't mean your income is finished from a certain player - you can still have an ingame shop for cosmetic things or little bonuses (none of which are game-breaking or pay2win).
Samuel Adams Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Sorry I am at work and I have to rush all the time.
Lucio_Garcia Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 I like P2P It keeps people from having a ton of accounts and cross teaming. if you go F2P I think you will have way to many Crossteamers. Cross teaming will happen no matter what, but even if you do have multiple accounts on multiple nations, how many people do you know that have pvp/rvr'd in the same instance in a os fight or a pb.
Samuel Adams Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Yeah but the basic player who can't afford it will not.
Johny Reb Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Cross teaming will happen no matter what, but even if you do have multiple accounts on multiple nations, how many people do you know that have pvp/rvr'd in the same instance in a os fight or a pb. 1 or 2 in three years that I know of. This question though assumes that we have the same definition of crossteaming. You are using the Portalus definition of crossteaming. Mine and most of my friends have a broader definition of it. Crossteaming IMO is playing different nations on the same map. Playing different nations on the same map effects the outcome of the map potentially and therefore is a bad thing. I know there are a couple of grey areas but overall its true. Winning the map is effected by a nations numbers, activity, econ, redzones, how the other nations go after each other, and morale to name a few. If you play two nations on the same map you effect those variables for two different nations. That being said, I don't think that kind of crossteaming can be stopped unless you limit a player to one account somehow which I hope they don't do.
Lord Hood Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 I would prefer the P2P model. I honestly think that potbs went downhill when it became FTP. The one time payment sounds fair but even if there was a minimal fee each month I would not be disheartened. With money flowing through the company in that matter then it would be easier to create new content and adjustments along the way. I would say to learn from the errors of potbs where essentially they changed from P2P to F2P and have done nothing but try to find new ways to bring in revenue since. The limited adjustments to content in potbs suggests that their model is one to steer clear of. 2
Morgan Posted April 18, 2014 Posted April 18, 2014 If this game actually launches as promising as it seems right now, i would be glad to p2p. A p2p player isn't looking for a game only to kill his boredom and spend some time. Is dedicated and he actually pays the game he really like and enjoy after searched hundrends. Also, the developers can always earn standard ammount of money to improve the game. Most f2p games suffer on this: Earn money by various other things, like on PotBS was the Treasure Island. Never know when and how many players will use it, after a while everybody was loaded with money and ships and stopped using it. Thats the reason PotBS never seriously upgraded after it became f2p and at the end sold and died.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now