Trial Twinking, R.I.P.

[Kincaide]

The fallacy of this whole thread is that Neon only posted it to get these 10 pages and counting of useless circular debates about paying or not paying for the game

Neon's original intent isn't relevant if some good conversation ends up coming from it anyway. And whether or not it's good conversation isn't something he or yourself could determine for the rest of us.

I'll be afk for the next few hours, so any other clever barbs will have to wait to be shot down until I get back

 

[CripzBlood]

well, i think the last sentence fits. a few f2ps cry about p2ps paying for the game to be overpowered. once you pay for veteran status you do the same (and no, the argument "but they pay more *cryyyyyyy* "doesnt count)

unfortunately u didnt make a point there cuz u didnt completely agree with kincaide point of view so its a bad argument.

 

[madhombre]

Okay. I don't agree. I have never heard a single F2P "cry" because a P2P pays for the game to be overpowered. What I have heard is the legitimate complaint about those people who play in a certain bracket to be overpowered. It has nothing to do with money per se, but the decision to move to a bracket purely because the majority of people you face will be four or nine levels lower than you. That's not about the money, that's about being a good sport.

.

no idea what you didnt understand about it, so here you go again:
a few (NOT ALL) f2ps complained about p2ps (IN THIS BRACKET, i thought it is obvious) pay to be overpowered. once you upgrade your account to be a veteran, you do the same, doesnt matter if the p2ps pay more (because they pay monthly)
got it now, friend?

 

[Vail]

Neon's original intent isn't relevant if some good conversation ends up coming from it anyway. And whether or not it's good conversation isn't something he or yourself could determine for the rest of us.

I'll be afk for the next few hours, so any other clever barbs will have to wait to be shot down until I get back

I agree, F$%& Neon!
____________________

Really though, I don't think it matters how one goes about defining f2p vs p2p vs p2w-- or w/e you want to call it. It's all just semantics, but the fact is that up till now, p2p (and I use that term in the most widely accepted sense) have had an undeniable advantage. Someone in pages past mentioned playing with f2p restrictions as being a matter of honor, and I cant stress how much I agree with this. Limiting yourself to allow for fair play is something that should be encouraged, as opposed to steam rolling the opponent simply because you paid $15 to your patron saint this passed month.

I don't know how everyone will react when the coming changes go live, but it will be interesting to see how things evolve.

 

[Srs]

People have mentioned the Guild Wars model. I haven't played Guild Wars 2, but I read about Rift, and from what I've heard of the veteran model, it sounds a lot like what Rift is doing, where you can pay for certain unlocks for your account. Veteren status to me sounds more like a Rift-like hybrid model that is neither f2p, nor p2p, and not even really b2p because you can always resub and get more stuff on your vet account.

Regarding f2p vs. p2p, What we have here is a false dichotomy. We've operated under the illusion that one is either pure f2p, or p2p, with no in between. I've maintained that there really aren't that many pure f2ps around, other than the jajas. BFD runs, chesting on a flying mount, getting piloted through raids—whatever—you're seeing the benefit of someone paying for the game, which is, in essence, a boost. When I used to fish, I had a water-strider. That was a huge advantage that I paid for, albeit on another account. The fact is that f2p purity has been shades of gray for a long time, and I've been so, so very gray.

P2ps have been dogging us for years to pay for the game. I told them that if we all paid for the game, this bracket would cease to exist, except for the jajas. Their logic just didn't make sense if everyone did it. Take Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law". What means regarding whether one ought to upgrade or not is: if everyone upgraded, they wouldn't necessarily be playing 20-2x. No one's going to want to play 20-2x, when it's the least of all brackets for p2p. It will soon be time to see if my theory plays out.

29s are a joke, no one should waste their time playing against those tards. The only reason to 29 is to GY farm other 29s. I say we take this party to 19s, and let those fools wallow in their own crapulence. Maybe after a time, they will all realize what they've been doing in the f2p bracket this whole time has been silly and pointless, and we can all come back and be jajas.

 

[Swoops]

Neon's original intent isn't relevant if some good conversation ends up coming from it anyway. And whether or not it's good conversation isn't something he or yourself could determine for the rest of us.

I'll be afk for the next few hours, so any other clever barbs will have to wait to be shot down until I get back

Skimming it quickly I saw the usual endless semantic debate over "purity" and what counts as f2p, with a dash of microeconomics and a few of the usual suspects fanning the flames. There's some good conversation mixed in, but as always you need to dig for it in these threads.

That being said, I think veteran accounts being widely adopted could greatly improve the bracket, but I'm just not sure if it's feasible for most F2P players to take full advantage of the benefits. It'd take a good amount of very generous people to fund guild BoAs and enchants for F2Ps looking to fully twink on veteran accounts, and even then they may barely make a dent in the general population of the bracket.

 

[Rusks]

19s is calling you all, make our bracket great again! The community leaders in 19s share a very similar game play mindset, the F2P community will fit in well. Our games are balanced for the most part besides alliance needing healers, and our Warsong pops are the gold standard for competition in a PuG.


I'd love to see some F2P teams in the Twink Cup and on the Guild Directory.

basically this. just send out a big fuck you to all the bonus armor BM monks and scumlord 29s by going 19

 

[Bop]

How did morality come into this? If a person upgrades an F2P account to Veteran, are they more immoral than a person who subscribed 5 years ago and had old 19s and comes back now that it's possible? How is it immoral to choose to maximize your characters in a way that anyone can legally do, as opposed to the persistent immorality we have endured of people plying and advantage that we could not do without committing to a subscription and losing access to the characters if the subscription lapsed?

For that is what makes this different from that. Staying at maximum ability for a one-time commitment of five dollars is incomparable, completely incomparable to staying at maximum ability for a lifetime commitment of fifteen dollars every month on the threat of loss of access if those payments should lapse. I'm not sure how you can possibly sustain an argument that the morality of playing veteran is tantamount to the morality of playing a P2P 29.

Economic feasibility is relative, so your point about in-comparability is without logical base.

I'm not going to conjure up hypothetical or anecdotal cases to back that point; it stands by itself stemming from the logical conclusion that some players may not be able to pay money for a video game.

If that conclusion is correct in 1% of all cases; nay, in even 1 singular case, then economic feasibility is comparable to 29's buying and continuously paying to have an advantage.

It follows that a majority of F2Ps may convert to Veteran accounts, leaving behind these non-viable cases who cannot convert. Possibly, the argument here would be that holistically the bracket is swapping, so an individual should as well.

But such holistic analysis is inaccurate, because we're a bracket that maintains a purposeful disadvantage rather than choosing to pay for advantages in the 20-29 bracket or for access to endgame content. By consciously making that choice and distancing yourself from the non-viable F2P cases, an individual would be using a resource unavailable to some to gain an advantage over them.

Some argue that the transition to Veteran accounts is in defense of the F2P bracket so as to combat 29's.

However, this is certainly an instance of the Baby and the Bathwater. We are taking something that we have that is special and unique to us, namely our own all-inclusive bracket, and changing it for the sake of the 29's. That is not a means for victory but rather the willing acceptance of defeat.

One could make the same argument in defense of becoming a level 29 to fight against other 29's. It's illogical and self-defeating.

Once more, to reiterate a very important point that should be the major take-away of this post: the economic relativity has no bearing on whether or not the transition to a Veteran account is a moral decision. If one singular person is unable to make that transition, then utilizing gear that is unavailable to them is taking advantage of them.

Some might say that they simply want to have access to the gear available to Veterans.

That is absolutely fine and something that P2P restricted 20's already do. The problem isn't that they possess the gear, but that they use it against others who do not have the gear. Which, and you may be noticing a pattern since this is the major point of this post, is unfair to those by which it is economically unfeasible for them to pay for Veteran status for whatever reason. Even if there is a singular case of a F2P being unable to spend money on that veteran account, then you are wrongfully utilizing an unfair advantage over that player by using Veteran Gear. The amount of money required is completely relative and subjective, and has no bearing in this debate.

Some might debate the rationale of using morally based arguments for a video game.

And you would be absolutely right. There is so much more to life than mincing words over what is ethical or unethical in a video game. Go out and make friends, smell flowers, enjoy life.

But do NOT consider yourself to be justified in your slaughter of Trial Accounts with your newly Bought toys.

Play how you choose to play. 29's certainly are able to swallow any inhibitions they have manifesting an Economic advantage over other people - similarly why should you let your guilt get in the way of your fun?

 

[Activate]

You're either trial, vet, or p2p. What is so hard to understand there?
---
Applying our moral opinions to an argument for one ethical behavior standard in this bracket is a waste of time and energy. This is a game. If you want to have a conversation that deep, apply it to the real world, where it actually has some value.

Neon's original intent isn't relevant if some good conversation ends up coming from it anyway. And whether or not it's good conversation isn't something he or yourself could determine for the rest of us.

I'll be afk for the next few hours, so any other clever barbs will have to wait to be shot down until I get back

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of this thread is off-topic. This thread, as can be concluded from [MENTION=16230]Neon[/MENTION]'s OP, is for discussing the future viability of trials in the bracket. You might suspect his true intentions, but his OP is clearly within the CoC and the thread itself does have limited value in it's apparent purpose. You've clearly decided that the conversation you'd like to be having is of more importance than the conversation he started. Not only have you allowed the derailment to continue, you've participated in it and you've sanctioned it.

You've neglected to offer a proper platform to grow a conversation around the real need to reach a consensus over terms of differentiation in accounts. The changes aren't even live and you're jumping the gun to move beyond speculation. On top of that you're complaining about your perceived need to "explain it" repeatedly. You overstepped as a common user and you are overstepping as a moderator.

 

[Doctaventh]

I've been depressed ever since they introduced shared pets and titles... Makes my achievements like the hallowed, disgusting oozeling, mounts, overall pet collection, and sea turtle all seem so much less. Woe is me.

 

[Goohd]

Lol this thread spread faster than ebola. It hasn't been a day yet and there are 12 pages. Must be a record. History has been made.

 

[Morlecid]

Allow me to take you back in time away from the 29s and 24s for a second -

Remember when you weren't constantly being 2 shot by rogues/ferals/BM/spriest etc etc? When you might have had to fight the "fotm OP huntard" but he actually took a while to get you down and kill you? Or that moment you finally 1v1d and killed him on whatever class you might've been playing at the time? Then the single p2p hunter rolls around and takes you down in 2 seconds flat and moves onto your healer (or something like that)?

The reason I find f2p interesting is not the "I want a disadvantage" but that I want some skill involved in the gameplay further than knowing how to play a class and gearing it to do what you need it to do: Kill your opponents. The best I can compare it is something like this: Two rogues of similar gear in a 1v1, who wins comes down more to things like who found and opened the other, when the evasions were popped, and if one was able to get behind the other to avoid the dodges. Not that skill can't come into play in this bracket or other brackets for p2ps, but every pair of f2p and p2p you see reduces the amount of it you can find within this bracket due to offsided combat.

But the 29s themselves aren't my point. The enchants are. It makes things way too, "overpowered" in a sense, when one class can commit to 1 shotting an opposing class, or another class can be unkillable, because that's how they decided to gear them. -More diversity in combat is there when the enchants are gone-. Where else can you find a place with such, dulled down power spikes and more comprehensive gameplay? You'd have to go to 100, but that bracket is just a CC fest and it's not a twink bracket either.

Skill being relative. I know there is a lot of skill in other brackets and I've been there, but there is just a certain feel to pure f2p combat that is unobtainable elsewhere.

 

[Kincaide]

Neon's original intent isn't relevant if some good conversation ends up coming from it anyway. And whether or not it's good conversation isn't something he or yourself could determine for the rest of us.

I'll be afk for the next few hours, so any other clever barbs will have to wait to be shot down until I get back

The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of this thread is off-topic. This thread, as can be concluded from Neon's OP, is for discussing the future viability of trials in the bracket. You might suspect his true intentions, but his OP is clearly within the CoC and the thread itself does have limited value in it's apparent purpose. You've clearly decided that the conversation you'd like to be having is of more importance than the conversation he started. Not only have you allowed the derailment to continue, you've participated in it and you've sanctioned it.

You've neglected to offer a proper platform to grow a conversation around the real need to reach a consensus over terms of differentiation in accounts. The changes aren't even live and you're jumping the gun to move beyond speculation. On top of that you're complaining about your perceived need to "explain it" repeatedly. You overstepped as a common user and you are overstepping as a moderator.

Now hold on a red-hot minute, mister. You're quoting me without the original context of my quote. I was replying to someone who had said that Neon's original purpose was to troll and bait. My response--that if that were true, his intent is rendered irrelevant by something good coming of it--is now being applied by you to the idea that Neon intended to foster a conversation and that I had ignored it. That is inaccurate and unfair to me. I clearly said, in context, that if someone posts a troll (which is what the person I was responding to was calling it: NOT ME) then something good can come out of it. I never said that it was a troll. I only said that even if it were, it still became a valued and reasonable discussion.

More to the point, you're making an assumption about Neon's intent anyway. I mean that's fair--all anyone can do is to assume, since we're not Neon--but to me, his words were not an invitation to open a discussion about the future viability of trials. That's what YOU want to talk about. Neon's words were a pretty stark and clear dismissal of trials altogether. And the conversation went through fifteen other replies--not one of them concluding that "how do we make trials viable in the future" was the topic--before I even stepped into this thread.

So in short, I think you're way off base, both in trying yourself to railroad the conversation into your own preferred topic, and denying the dozens of other posters before you who were happy to talk about the original topic, and in accusing me of malfeasance. If you suddenly have an issue with the way I moderate because I dared to be vocal in an arena that you have a differing opinion on, please feel free to take it up with my boss. Here, I'll even tag him for you: [MENTION=5141]Shane[/MENTION]

I'm not trying to get people mad; I'm trying to get people to think. If you have an issue with that, that's between us and you should have PM'ed me instead of calling me out publicly, because doing that is against the rules. I didn't sign away my ability to form and share an opinion here, and it's a pretty low tactic to question my ethics just to win a point in an argument.

PM me if you want to keep talking about me, or keep posting if you want to talk about the topic. The actual topic that everyone else is discussing, not your own personal topic for which you've always been welcome to make your own thread.

 

[Kincaide]

Things

I definitely don't have the energy to answer your post point by point, not after the last post I had to write, but I did want to point out that you are bring in this "even one player" argument. So, what if there's a guy who plays a trial account because he works on oil rigs, and so he's not at home often enough to warrant paying any money for an account... but it just so happens that he is always out to sea on the oil rig coincidentally with every weekend that the Darkmoon Faire happens. He can therefore never get heirloom gear. Per your "even one player" argument, therefore, NONE of us should ever wear any heirlooms, because doing so would be unfair to him.

I mean I could slippery slope this into the wall, talking about the guy who can't afford internet, the guy who can't get a computer, the guy who can't read, but to do so would only be for the purpose of demonstrating that you're marking an arbitrary line (even one person) on what is actually a scale from least absurd to most absurd. To wit: if you're in a battleground, and you can tell by an opponent's HP and looking at his armor graphics that he doesn't have heirlooms, do you then take yours off? Because by your argument, if you don't, then you are taking advantage of him and are as morally bankrupt as the 29s with endgame enchants... or at least that's the inevitable conclusion reached by applying your exact same logical construct to another completely plausible situation.

 

[Srs]

 

[Bop]

I definitely don't have the energy to answer your post point by point, not after the last post I had to write, but I did want to point out that you are bring in this "even one player" argument. So, what if there's a guy who plays a trial account because he works on oil rigs, and so he's not at home often enough to warrant paying any money for an account... but it just so happens that he is always out to sea on the oil rig coincidentally with every weekend that the Darkmoon Faire happens. He can therefore never get heirloom gear. Per your "even one player" argument, therefore, NONE of us should ever wear any heirlooms, because doing so would be unfair to him.

I mean I could slippery slope this into the wall, talking about the guy who can't afford internet, the guy who can't get a computer, the guy who can't read, but to do so would only be for the purpose of demonstrating that you're marking an arbitrary line (even one person) on what is actually a scale from least absurd to most absurd. To wit: if you're in a battleground, and you can tell by an opponent's HP and looking at his armor graphics that he doesn't have heirlooms, do you then take yours off? Because by your argument, if you don't, then you are taking advantage of him and are as morally bankrupt as the 29s with endgame enchants... or at least that's the inevitable conclusion reached by applying your exact same logical construct to another completely plausible situation.

You're doing my argument a massive injustice by not fully reading it or reasoning it through before responding.

I understand that your side of the argument here is fairly unpopular and that you have to deal with quite a few people who are off-topic, etc.

But please don't waste the time I put into crafting a logical response for you.

If your response to my "even one player" argument is that I'm not representing the "even one player"s who are currently victim to the F2P bracket, Kincaide, how do you suppose there is any logical weight to support your arguments for that?

Suppose I grant you that there are currently "even one player"s who are unable to attain heirlooms for whatever outlandish reason. Those players, who we share privilege over, are still going to be victims of the Veteran Account schism should it come to pass. In short, your logical impact is non-unique. They are victims now and they will be victims then. In fact, they will be victimized JUST as much as any other F2P who currently has access to all the F2P content. So if anything, they would be weighed in favor of my argument that if "even one player" cannot access Veteran content, than there is a discrepancy similar to the F2P -> P2P one.

I'll wait for your point-by-point of my original post, assuming it is forthcoming at some future time, but my analysis of the "slippery slope" you mentioned as a way of purporting current F2Ps as having an unfair advantage over some is as follows:

1. It is entirely circumstantial.

Every single player that you've mentioned has a wide and varying range of reasons as to why they cannot fully access F2P content. But should they gain additional resources (Time, Internet, Etc) they would be able to access the same features as any other F2P. The difference with Veteran accounts is that the resource they require is Money, which has long since defined our bracket as being separate from the others, and they gain access to features that others who have not paid Money do not have access to. Time and Internet access do not define the F2P as being separate from the P2P. Access to the means of paying for a WoW subscription, however, does.

2. It is non-consensual.

No one is consciously making the decision to have an advantage over those who do not have full access to F2P gear. If I could change my gear based on the opponent I was facing, I would. That's an absurd and impossible goal, and not one that I can actively or consciously choose for myself. I can, however, choose to not pay money for an advantage over people.

3. It is hardly impactful.

The number of players who cannot actively play F2P WoW despite wanting to is extremely low. The number is miniscule because F2P WoW is extremely easy to play. You literally need the same tools that access Facebook to play Starter Edition World of Warcraft. Billions of people use Facebook daily.

However, the number who cannot submit micro-transactions to a large company, whether by choice or by limitation, is substantially larger.

 

[Kincaide]

I understand that your side of the argument here is fairly unpopular and that you have to deal with quite a few people who are off-topic, etc.

I think before you throw that at me, you at least owe it to me to explain what you believe my side of the argument is. Because the only side of the argument I feel like I've made, is that Veteran accounts cannot be lumped together with P2P accounts nor treated the same, and I believe there have been many people, even in this thread, who agree with that point, even if they don't necessarily all agree on what to call them instead.

The difference with Veteran accounts is that the resource they require is Money, which has long since defined our bracket as being separate from the others, and they gain access to features that others who have not paid Money do not have access to.

The issue I see with that argument is that prior to 6.1, the only two options were "no money" and "continuous money every month or you can't even log in to look at your characters" so of course that was the defining difference. But now the level of financial commitment has plummeted to absolute rock bottom, to the point that a reasonable person would wonder how a player could afford to pay for internet and electricity and not be able to pay five dollars, one time, to stay with the community... a point that has been brought up numerous times, by numerous people all not named Kincaide, to the point that, as compared with prior to 6.1, financial hardship is about as relevant an argument as a player not being able to log in during DMF. I will concede that you still have a moral argument against paying, but that is begging the question: Playing veteran is immoral because you have to pay, and I have a moral compunction against paying Blizzard, therefore paying Blizzard is immoral.

If I could change my gear based on the opponent I was facing, I would. That's an absurd and impossible goal, and not one that I can actively or consciously choose for myself. I can, however, choose to not pay money for an advantage over people.

You can also, as a Veteran, just as easily switch to a Trial Account Rules set when you are in an event with Trial players. As a 20 Veteran in a pug battleground it is an equally absurd and impossible goal to know when someone isn't a Veteran, as it is for an heirloom-wearing Trial to know when someone doesn't have heirlooms. It doesn't logically follow to accept one case and reject the other. You're asking Veterans to gimp themselves on the chance that there's someone in the battleground who isn't a Veteran, but yet you wouldn't gimp yourself by taking off your heirlooms on the chance that there's someone in the battleground who doesn't have heirlooms. To differentiate the two is to assume statistics.

The number of players who cannot actively play F2P WoW despite wanting to is extremely low. The number is miniscule because F2P WoW is extremely easy to play. You literally need the same tools that access Facebook to play Starter Edition World of Warcraft. Billions of people use Facebook daily.

However, the number who cannot submit micro-transactions to a large company, whether by choice or by limitation, is substantially larger.

And here again, you are assuming statistics. You don't know what percentage of people in a given battleground can't or won't pay a mere five dollars, any more than you can know what percentage of people in a given battleground have heirlooms. I feel like a lot of your argument is built on assuming that population percentages are stacked the way you think they are, but you don't have any empirical basis for claiming those figures.

 

[Bop]

I think before you throw that at me, you at least owe it to me to explain what you believe my side of the argument is. Because the only side of the argument I feel like I've made, is that Veteran accounts cannot be lumped together with P2P accounts nor treated the same, and I believe there have been many people, even in this thread, who agree with that point, even if they don't necessarily all agree on what to call them instead.



The issue I see with that argument is that prior to 6.1, the only two options were "no money" and "continuous money every month or you can't even log in to look at your characters" so of course that was the defining difference. But now the level of financial commitment has plummeted to absolute rock bottom, to the point that a reasonable person would wonder how a player could afford to pay for internet and electricity and not be able to pay five dollars, one time, to stay with the community... a point that has been brought up numerous times, by numerous people all not named Kincaide, to the point that, as compared with prior to 6.1, financial hardship is about as relevant an argument as a player not being able to log in during DMF. I will concede that you still have a moral argument against paying, but that is begging the question: Playing veteran is immoral because you have to pay, and I have a moral compunction against paying Blizzard, therefore paying Blizzard is immoral.



You can also, as a Veteran, just as easily switch to a Trial Account Rules set when you are in an event with Trial players. As a 20 Veteran in a pug battleground it is an equally absurd and impossible goal to know when someone isn't a Veteran, as it is for an heirloom-wearing Trial to know when someone doesn't have heirlooms. It doesn't logically follow to accept one case and reject the other. You're asking Veterans to gimp themselves on the chance that there's someone in the battleground who isn't a Veteran, but yet you wouldn't gimp yourself by taking off your heirlooms on the chance that there's someone in the battleground who doesn't have heirlooms. To differentiate the two is to assume statistics.



And here again, you are assuming statistics. You don't know what percentage of people in a given battleground can't or won't pay a mere five dollars, any more than you can know what percentage of people in a given battleground have heirlooms. I feel like a lot of your argument is built on assuming that population percentages are stacked the way you think they are, but you don't have any empirical basis for claiming those figures.

I've literally addressed every point you brought up in this post preemptively in my original post. I'd rather continue from there then repeat myself, if that's okay with you.

The only addition I can make is the request you made for me to confirm what I believed your argument to be.

As I understand it, correct me if I am wrong or incomplete, your argument is that the pros of the progression of this bracket towards minimizing the gap between Non-Subbed and Subbed accounts outweigh the cons.

If you could affirm or deny that, then we can move on to addressing my original critiques of that argument or I can reassess my stance on your points.

 

[Kincaide]

[MENTION=18826]Bop[/MENTION] Look, stepping back a minute, maybe neither of us actually fully understands exactly what the other is trying to assert. Are you in fact saying that you think a person who chooses to play Veteran in the 20-29 bracket is as morally bereft as a person who chooses to play P2P 29? Because if that is your assertion, you should state it and let's address it directly, because I have some issues with the factual support for that fundamental premise.

 

[Bop]

[MENTION=18826]Bop[/MENTION] Look, stepping back a minute, maybe neither of us actually fully understands exactly what the other is trying to assert. Are you in fact saying that you think a person who chooses to play Veteran in the 20-29 bracket is as morally bereft as a person who chooses to play P2P 29? Because if that is your assertion, you should state it and let's address it directly, because I have some issues with the factual support for that fundamental premise.

My argument is addressed in my original post as succinctly as I could possibly put it here.