Plans for 6.1?

[LennywBT]

enjoy the added help from the people with boa's

That is a 2 edged knife... They may be your foes in the same time.

 

[Rolls]

That is a 2 edged knife... They may be your foes in the same time.

Doesn't matter to me, it will only even out the bracket more, adding an in between to separate the large gap that there is with f2p and 29's as it is.
Edit: Yes I do know that there will still be some q imbalances but there's going to be a higher chance that both sides will have toons with BoA's and maxed enchants.

 

[Kincaide]

many products u dont have to pay monthl

True... and those games are called free to play with paid upgrades. That is the very definition of what we have now.

f2p is defined by the gear you use and only that, whether you pay for the acc or not is moot [...] a p2p acc playing with f2p restrictions is f2p even though its paying a sub

Wait, you're telling me that in your definition, a player playing a paid subscription for which they pay real money per month is somehow a free to play account? That doesn't make any sense. I submit that the landscape needs better definitions if the only way you can describe a paying account is by calling it a nonpaying account.

Maybe let the community decide if it changes? Nothing has changed yet. Whole discussion circles around next weeks patch.

I'm not the one saying it needs to change; you're not understanding my point. I'm saying that the reality of the game has changed, and those changes require a new vocabulary whether any of us like it or not, as Zehj's example above perfectly illustrate. If you have to call an account on which you don't pay a subscription a pay-to-play, and you have to call an account on which someone does pay a subscription a free-to-play, I would submit that the terminology is clearly broken and inapplicable.

Mypersonal view, if you want it, is that we need to abandon "P2P" and "F2P" labels altogether, and just call a person's current account status Trial, Veteran, and Subscribing. Remember that "F2P" and "P2P" are just cultural jargon from our little corner of the game, and while they used to work in the former binary status system, there are more than two possible states now, and a binary nomenclature does not work.

And those who keep trying to force the outdated binary system on a new reality that is at least tertiary, as I said before, are holding back progress of the community and the culture. In my opinion.

 

[Zehj]

Wait, you're telling me that in your definition, a player playing a paid subscription for which they pay real money per month is somehow a free to play account? That doesn't make any sense. I submit that the landscape needs better definitions if the only way you can describe a paying account is by calling it a nonpaying account.

the gear is the only thing that matters - f2p means f2p gear

pussyfooting around with financial definitions is pointless

 

[dwaters11]

True... and those games are called free to play with paid upgrades. That is the very definition of what we have now.

Skyrim, Diablo 3, Call of Duty, etc etc are all free to play games in your eyes? No, they are games with sunk costs rather than WoW which is a game with a sunk cost (buying the battle chest in this case) and a fixed cost (cost of rolling subscription). Just because someone doesn't have an active sub doesn't mean they never paid for the game. The current status of the subscription, in my eyes, has no bearing on F2P/P2P status. In 6.1 F2P will be "starter" accounts and P2P will be "Veteran" and "Subscribing". With a veteran account you *already paid* for the extra stuff and that doesn't mean it's currently free. It's a sunk cost because that money could have been spent elsewhere. You can rationalize it as you pay less to play than a current subscriber but at the end of the day once you pay any kind of money you're looking at a sunk cost and are no longer "F2P".

I don't care at all for the "rivalries" between level 20s and level 29s. I support more people going veteran as it will allow for more equal and better competition across the board.

 

[Kincaide]

at the end of the day once you pay any kind of money you're looking at a sunk cost and are no longer "F2P".

Rather than repeat my lesson on economics here I'll just direct you to my comments after your post on the other thread.

 

[dwaters11]

You totally ignored my points and rambled on about something I didn't even mention - cost of a computer, electricity, where did that even come from? I'm guessing you just googled fixed cost and that's where it came from. Protip: actually read wikipedia articles instead of the first sentence that comes up when you Google it.

Sunk costs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kincaide]

You totally ignored my points and rambled on about something I didn't even mention - cost of a computer, electricity, where did that even come from? I'm guessing you just googled fixed cost and that's where it came from. Protip: actually read wikipedia articles instead of the first sentence that comes up when you Google it.

Sunk costs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really? Because I don't think I could have emphasized and highlighted the flaw in your argument any bolder or bigger when I quoted it. And don't go around assuming you're the only one here with an advanced education, because you aren't. Insulting other people by diminishing their knowledge or insinuating that only you know what you're talking about is not going to go a long way in an argument around here.

 

[Kincaide]

Since this thread has come to parallel the other current thread in terms of the topic, I'm closing it. I had actually originally closed this thread at my first post on the first page, since it also parallels the 100+ post thread I linked to, but I decided to re-open it before I went to school for the day. Now I see that this thread found no direction of its own and is only splitting two other conversations from their respective threads, so down it goes. If anyone wants to continue discussing either of those two topics, please do so in the other two threads.