Buying currency: thoughts

I am all against a system where you can buy money directly, because that would tip the in-game off balance and render it meaningless and I certainly dislike the sentiment of a clear distinction between players of several types, putting players into boxes. But....

I find the system that EVE Online employs beautiful, it solves many problems at once and naturally balances itself: You cannot buy money, you can only buy game time which you can then trade. It cannot tip the currency off balance because it does not inject new money into the system. The price for a game-time certificate is subject to supply and demand, if particularly many player would buy such certificates, the in-game price would drop. Gold farming has become largly irrelevant in EVE Online as far as I can tell. It is a way to trade currency around the corner while maintaining a healthy economy.

I am just not sure whether it is simply possible to utilize such a system with the same efficiency in SW:TOR. The bazaar on The Progenitor is not the same as Jita IV, it's a way smaller scale. The separation between two distinct factions which cannot directly trade with each other is not helping either. Nevertheless I find it a most interesting idea.

Let me start by saying, I am against in game currency being bought by real life money.

The problem with restrictions (as suggested in this thread), is the adage "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile." Sure BW can impose severe restrictions on the amount of credits one can buy in a time frame and further limit the max number of credits a given account can have (if they purchase credits with real money), but then you open up the flood gates to those who complain that it is not enough.

As proof, I look to WoW dual spec. In WoW, for a long time, if you wanted to change your skill tree setup you had to go to a vendor, reset your trees for a steadily increasing fee (that eventually maxes out), then reapply your points. A lot of players did this a lot - going back and forth between tanking or healing and DPS for raids, switching between PvE and PvP specs, etc. For years players asked for a cheaper faster way to change skill sets. Eventually, Blizzard implemented a dual spec system, where you can pay a single rather hefty fee (for the time) and one character can now have two specs.

For a while, most were happy. But then players started realizing that they really wanted more than two talent sets. They realized that for optimization, if they had a PvE healing spec and a PvE DPS spec, if they wanted to participate in PvP at an optimal level they had to pay to undo one of their two specs and redo it as PvP. And so the forums became flooded with requests for tri-spec. Some even went so far as to ask for unlimited specs (for a fee).

the kicker is that as it turns out, Blizzard was not at all happy with the effect(s) that dual spec had on the game. So going against their nature of "never say never" they actually did state that they would NEVER implement more than a two talent set system; that if they could reverse dual-spec they would, but they know they cannot.

And yet, the tri/multi-spec threads continue to appear on a regular basis.

My point is, two fold:

- be careful what you wish for you might get it but not the way you want it.
- even if what you suggest does come to pass, eventually it will not be enough

It is clear that people (and swtor community is a good example) can complain about everything and its opposite. It's in the man nature and there are thousands of people that want the game as they like (some also threat to close the subscription if they are not satisfied) but it is bioware duty (and right) to develop the game following their design, suggestions can be appreciated but final decision must be at bioware side, not community side no matter what.
Said that, i don't agree to not propose improvements to avoid further requests ( "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile") simply because bioware is, and have to remain, free to answer a firm and decisive "yes" or "no" to people requests. Otherwise the game will not go anywere.it seems that you agreed with my strict limit rules proposal, i don't know other people ideas, but i'd start from that not because it is my proposal but simply because it is a proposal that tries to take the good of the suggestion putting an hard limit on the risks connected to it.

Because your post is well written and well thought out, I apologize for addressing it in reverse order, but you must admit that your last paragraph is spot on analogous to a central bank, and with controlled policy these institutions, though subject to much greater volatility, do not uniformly result in hyperinflation or imbalance. All in game currency is created by Bioware, and there is not a finite amount. Variations in in-game money supply do not necessarily result in devaluation on the scale which I believe you are suggesting.

Your point about competitive play is well taken, but that only applies to some players. Do players who do not choose to have their recreation rated need to be forced to play with a similar style, or do they have a right to have the same positive experience, with their needs taken into account?

Finally, to respond to your competitive hobby analogy, I'll need to copy your text and address your examples point by point:

- If this were marathon running and you didn't have the time to train, but could afford a motorcycle, would it be fine for your to ride it in a marathon? What about shoes? What abut getting to the marathon? What about training? Do you imagine that an average Kenyan has access to these things? Many, many marathons have sponsored runners.
- If this were tennis could you use a racket twice the size of anyone else? If you did, you'd lose, but if you used a custom made top-of-the-line racket you'd do better, or if you had an instructor.
- If this were paintball could you use a helicopter to drop paint bombs on the other team? No, but if you had a better paintgun ... have you ever played paintball? Purchased prime equipment is often times required to play on top teams.
- If it were auto racing could you use a V-8 when everyone else is using a 4 cylinder? Automobile racing of any sort is vastly beholden to sponsorship money. A better car often means a win.
- If it were poker would it fine for a player to be spotted a couple of aces just because he can afford it? This analogy I don't understand - you can't even play a poker tournament without significantly more cash than is being discussed here.

EVE has been referenced here, and by a very successful player of that game. None of the things you mention have happened in that game, where there is an UNREGULATED ability to buy credits. No hyperinflation, no unfair advantage. Can you provide me an example of a game that was destroyed by giving players the ability to buy small amounts of currency?

Your point is well taken but I respectfully disagree with a portion of your argument. I don't think that a comparison has been made, and I believe that the conclusion you hypothesize would not result. Optimized players with large amounts of time do much better than a player with smaller amounts of time. They are investing time, and they are receiving what to them is a successful return on that investment. "Casual" players have no way to invest at this point.

Really? Why can't I play? Is that what it comes down to, that I .... shouldn't play a game where I can only invest time? See my original post. I'm not trying to be a jerk - I just disagree. I should be allowed to play and so should other people like me.

In your opinion, could this effect have been mitigated in any way? Thanks very much, by the way, for posting examples.

I agree completely. You are one type of gamer, and congratulations on your success. "You want to do only the "fun" stuff? Fine, that is your option" is the statement I am trying to get to without unbalancing the game or making it any less fun for you.

If your time is truely as limited as you say. THIS is not the hobby for you. Period. Part of this hobby envolves investing time in the game to achieve some virtual reward. These "games" were originally suposed to be a simulation of "life" in a "fantasy"/"scifi" setting. "Life" takes "time". Time is a component of the MMORPG genre. You are asking to circumvent a game mechanic. You are asking to be able to avoid the "time" component by exchanging "cash" to do so. Some ( myself included ) view this as paying someone else to "write your paper" so that you can get a high mark. You didn't put the time in to earn the high mark. All you did was pay for the reward.

THIS is what people have been trying to say to you for pages and pages. YOU and those that think like you are "cheaters" because you are avoiding a built in mechanic of the MMORPG genre. If you don't agree then you best not call yourself an MMORPG gamer because quite frankly paying for rewards makes you a "poser", a "pretender". You will not have earned anything that you aquire in the same sense as one that put the time in to achieve the same end.

I'm off for work 10-11 hours per day, I started playing with early access, I cannot play on most weekends, I have 7 characters. My main is level 50, in full BH/campaign gear with 5M credits in the bank, all useful (and some useless) legacy perks unlocked and my alts are level 20-30 and each have ~200k credits in their account. Considering all my purchases I spent well over 10M already.

1.) Don't play the working people card.

2.) Your buying credits devalues the effort I put into getting what I got.

3.) Here's an exotic thought: You're not supposed to get everything you want immediately. You're supposed to work for it, which takes time, and during that time you're supposed to pay your subscription. That's kind of the business idea behind an MMO (and that's why working people are their most valued customers - they need more subscription time to achieve things, don't eat through content in less time than is required to develop new stuff and use less resources per month than hardcore gamers with too much time on their hands).
And as the devs have stated in another thread about endgame gear, they feel that people are acquiring things too fast already. Giving them an option to buy their way in with real money will make it even faster, which - apparently - they don't want (see business model argument).

4.) The path is the goal. Set a goal, have fun getting there and enjoy the rewards.

For instant-gratification, single-player experience - look elsewhere?