Are you against the cash shop offering faster XP gains?

[Tom Peters]

I do not like the idea of paying real money for extra XP.

They won't get much of an advantage per say, so it won't interfere with balance, but I still don't think anyone deserves to get higher rank by paying real money. It's just cheap.

[Figment]

Cheap is getting all account benefits and convenience for free. Expect a f2p system akin to DCUO.

[Vash02]

Cheap is getting to play a AAA game for free. Other than the fact its awesome of course.

[Malorn]

Faster xp gains are a fine product for the in game shop. It provides no advantage that couldn't otherwise be gained through normal play.

[cellinaire]

Debated to death in EQ/EQ2 forums. If the SC XP-booster release at least 1 year after launch, I'm fine with that and most of the people won't care much..

[Tom Peters]

Originally Posted by cellinaire

Debated to death in EQ/EQ2 forums. If the SC XP-booster release at least 1 year after launch, I'm fine with that and most of the people won't care much..

I like this idea. Heck, even a few months.

[Skorne]

I can't judge without more details but to put it bluntly I don't trust SOE not to abuse this. It really depends how it's handled... XP boosters are one thing but if someone can spend a fortune and unlock certain stuff instantly, even if it's situational variants on weapons or scopes and the like, that person might as well be paying to win until every person playing for free catches up to them... which will probably take a very long time judging by most F2P games. Now you might say a skilled player who paid nothing will still beat a crap player who spent a fortune, but what about 2 skilled players? What about 2 skilled outfits?

I hope I don't come across as a cheapskate, on the contrary I am happy to pay to support a game I love but I object if that gives me a distinct advantage (I count versatility as an advantage) over those who can't or won't pay - even if it's only for 6 months or a year. I'm also worried about the 'resource booster' I've seen mentioned...

[Hermes]

No problem from my view.

If it was a problem, that would be more of a sign the lateral progression isn't working properly.

If it helps more people with limited time play thats only a good thing for pop numbers.

[Coreldan]

I'm cool with it and expecting it to be in.

Any "pay2skipgrind" is OK with me, as long as the results arnt exclusive to paying

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Skorne

I can't judge without more details but to put it bluntly I don't trust SOE not to abuse this. It really depends how it's handled... XP boosters are one thing but if someone can spend a fortune and unlock certain stuff instantly, even if it's situational variants on weapons or scopes and the like, that person might as well be paying to win until every person playing for free catches up to them... which will probably take a very long time judging by most F2P games. Now you might say a skilled player who paid nothing will still beat a crap player who spent a fortune, but what about 2 skilled players? What about 2 skilled outfits?

I hope I don't come across as a cheapskate, on the contrary I am happy to pay to support a game I love but I object if that gives me a distinct advantage (I count versatility as an advantage) over those who can't or won't pay - even if it's only for 6 months or a year. I'm also worried about the 'resource booster' I've seen mentioned...

Well the entire point is that there is no pay to win because all of the modifications are sidegrades. Even if a person had every single modification unlocked they still would have an absolute maximum of a 20% edge over a new character, which is relatively miniscule if you really look at it.

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by Skorne

I can't judge without more details but to put it bluntly I don't trust SOE not to abuse this. It really depends how it's handled... XP boosters are one thing but if someone can spend a fortune and unlock certain stuff instantly, even if it's situational variants on weapons or scopes and the like, that person might as well be paying to win until every person playing for free catches up to them... which will probably take a very long time judging by most F2P games. Now you might say a skilled player who paid nothing will still beat a crap player who spent a fortune, but what about 2 skilled players? What about 2 skilled outfits?

I hope I don't come across as a cheapskate, on the contrary I am happy to pay to support a game I love but I object if that gives me a distinct advantage (I count versatility as an advantage) over those who can't or won't pay - even if it's only for 6 months or a year. I'm also worried about the 'resource booster' I've seen mentioned...

I'd put the 'Resource booster' in the same line with the 'XP booster'. Of course these two aren't exactly the same in it's nature, but bear in mind that as a company they will always try to wander around the 'fine line'. Constant struggle between SOE and players. Also between game companies and gamers around the world.


(what I mean by 'fine line' is basically that, there's still no definite criteria on what's allowed as 'fluff' stuffs and what's not safe to be included in cash shop. One gamer might say, "I'm fine with that" when another says "Are you really trying to sell these, really?" on the same item.)

[ringring]

I am not against it in principle and it's probably one of the types of thing I will pay for.

Whether it is a good or a bad thing depends on how much xp gain there is versus how much can be gained playing normally ... there shouldn't be too much of a gap, but I couldn't myself put a figure on the difference.

The other thing is .. it is in our interest to give money to SOE to finance the investment they have made so far and the investment yet to be made .... we can't say no to everything in the shop apart from decals.

[Mod]

I think the distinction between xp to increase your battle rank and xp to increase your certs are important.

After having watched through the videos and read the reviews/interviews, my impression on the cash shop offer for xp gain was to the certs rather than the battle rank, and that was only when you were offline.

This would allow the people who don't mind paying and don't have much time to spend online to further keep up with the people who are able to spend large amounts of time ingame. As such, I don't see a problem with it.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by VioletZero

It shouldn't be in at launch for obvious reasons.

What obvious reason is that?


Also, why is everyone so cheap that they don't want to be pushed to shell out a few bucks? When F2P was announced, everyone was hating, and begging to be required to shell out $15 a month, not to have an advantage, but simply to play(which is an enormous advantage).

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Skorne

I can't judge without more details but to put it bluntly I don't trust SOE not to abuse this. It really depends how it's handled... XP boosters are one thing but if someone can spend a fortune and unlock certain stuff instantly, even if it's situational variants on weapons or scopes and the like, that person might as well be paying to win until every person playing for free catches up to them... which will probably take a very long time judging by most F2P games. Now you might say a skilled player who paid nothing will still beat a crap player who spent a fortune, but what about 2 skilled players? What about 2 skilled outfits?

I hope I don't come across as a cheapskate, on the contrary I am happy to pay to support a game I love but I object if that gives me a distinct advantage (I count versatility as an advantage) over those who can't or won't pay - even if it's only for 6 months or a year. I'm also worried about the 'resource booster' I've seen mentioned...

yea prettymuch... ill be flying a fully equipped AIR-GROUND scythe and with a certain amount of shit unlocked for the infantry roll I end up playing...what you all gonna do about it?