"Kyno;c-2152959" wrote:
"Nebulous;c-2152932" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2152880" wrote:
"Nebulous;c-2152867" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2152781" wrote:
"Nebulous;c-2152764" wrote:
Thanks for finally reading what the op was asking.
In the case of the 49 hyperdrive bundles, so what if the amount limit was removed in this case, which wasn’t the topic anyway. If the player spent 4900 dollars to transfer 49 stun guns a day it would take ~490 days to transfers the same amount of stun guns (about 10 bucks a stun gun) he could have just bought with the 4900 dollars. Seems a really weird way to do it.
as i said, there is no need to purchase, you could just farm them and increase your farm 49x.
Let’s look at this a bit.
When Do we consider abuse to happen? Is there any requirement? If this person plays 50 accounts to acquire gear to redistribute the gear to a main, should it still be considered abuse? There would be a lot of sustained effort to login and play this many accounts indefinitely. Is abuse only for those who try to use minimal or unsustainable effort to get a benefit or does effort not matter even if it’s an incredible amount of work?
Let’s look at two scenarios.
The alt overlord plays in his/her own guild surrounded by 49 alts. Because we feel this player doesn’t pay, it’s okay to assume these 49 alts are woefully underbuilt. Does the impact of lessor rewards from tw/Tb/raid ticket grinding alleviate the idea of abuse? Is it still abuse for a player to lose out on those reward gears to accumulate stun guns? Does it still make sense to claim this will be an authentic excuse to block changes to donations? Is this gear accumulation/distribution inefficient For his/her main and if so, Could we convince players this is inefficient compared to just asking the other guild members to donate.
Let’s say the player is actually in a top tier guild which is capable of the highest end rewards of tw/Tb/raids. How often can this player Actually guild swap and face 2 x 24hr Donation bans and not lock himself/herself out of tw/Tb? 3 times a month or so? Would this still be considered abuse to actually play 49 other accounts and swap back and forth for 3 stun guns a month?
I am genuinely interested in what constitutes abuse and does it have varying degrees? Can abuse be offset in anyway? Do we really think this would be abuse or do we just think it is cuz someone said it would be? Do we imagine worst case scenarios and then think everyone will do it?
abuse would revolve around the in game economy and what is established by the dev team. so the current setup has limitation on what can be donated and how much of each. this was done for a reason, which is all around the gating of progress to give the game a pace. things that allow a player to openly violate this pace through some means (even if it involves actually playing, but on multiple accounts) could be considered abuse.
if the players actions dont violate the limits set by the dev team then it doesn't seem to be abuse, which is why they put those limitations in place. if a player wanted to run through all the hoops to make that work and they see a benefit, great. the limitations on all the donations and switching are in place to ensure that doing so will not allow a player to out pace others to any extent that is "not ok"
the goal of the business model used in this game is, if you want to have a faster pace you can get it through $$. every other action is controlled to fall within the "norm", and even $$ has its own "norm" or pace based on all the in game economics and balance.
Yes. I agree for the why we have what we have. But I’m saying, _if_ they removed the economy gate, how would it be abuse? That ain’t the same argument as controlling the Economy.
if they remove it, then they are obviously ok with it and therefore its not abuse. the reason they wont remove it is because there is an economy gated pace to the game they are trying to maintain. which is why the initial response to questions of this nature (especially when misinterpreted) is that it just opens the door for abuse.
Well, is this a contradictory post? The first two clauses are clear. Then it seems to circle back around. Cuz if we say it’s not abuse by virtue of CG expanding the limit, Then we shouldn’t just say it's abuse. If it were first communicated that it’s economic related, then maybe that makes more sense, but then we may not have had a constructive talk.
My interpretation of what happened in This thread was a misunderstanding of what the OP actually asked for compounded with a blanket and incorrect application of the term abuse.
