Goblin Squad Member
|
What if the price for that sub that includes everything was $50 a month? What if it was $100? If that give you access to everything in the cash shop, and all additional content, isn't that sub also paying to win?
Then make a subscription that is EVERYTHING THE GAME OFFERS, and set a price for it. And I do mean everything.
Im sure you picked the prices to show it as outrageous. Once you have bought everything in the store, it would not average out to 50 or 100... more like $20 a month at most.
A subscription is not pay to win, it is pay to play. Subscriptions give you access to the game with full ability to play the game. That should be the standard, and everything else is focused on that.
That is why some of the high end PVP games use subscription only. It keeps everyone on the same playing field.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Relax dude, if the cash shop ever does have something that feels "pay to win" we will be at the picket line with you.[ Actually. Pay to train is pay to win. Deal with that!Preach on, Brother.
What?
Are the two of you serious?
Im saying that it does, maybe not by much, but if your able to quickly grab a potion off the MTX shop right before you get into a fight... That is enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even though he's not on staff, he's totally right. If you can't buy an advantage, a game is not Pay to Win.
And you are not an investor.
No, I am not an Investor. That said, yes, I have twice invested my money into this games development. I'm also obviously invested into this from a mental standpoint.
in·vest (n-vst)
v. in·vest·ed, in·vest·ing, in·vests
v.tr.
1. To commit (money or capital) in order to gain a financial return: invested their savings in stocks and bonds.
2.
a. To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education.
b. To devote morally or psychologically, as to a purpose; commit: "Men of our generation are invested in what they do, women in what we are" (Shana Alexander).
I'd say I firmly fall under 2.a. and 2.b.
Any mechanical benefit at all is an advantage. Classes and races definitely fall under this category, at least in pen and paper. If this is not true in PFO, then I'd honestly be surprised and disappointed. A two level dip into Paladin or Monk can make a good character insanely powerful when executed correctly. Part of the point of the game is system mastery. When you put these into the store, it feels like your then saying system mastery costs money to even attempt.
I'm still holding judgement on the Cash Shop since we haven't seen how they are implementing it. However, it feels to me as if they are already defending the cash shop and setting the stage so they can sell Classes, Races, Dungeons, Consumables and Equipment. I know Ryan has given me hope based on his earlier comments, however, the perception is still there for me based on how defensive this entire thread is.
People who are shouting about how GW still needs to make money seem to forget that GW can and should charge for the core game, a monthly subscription and possible expansions. I don't know the total cost of the project obviously, but there was a large capital influx from Kickstarter to assist and offset the development cost.
Everything you listed Avari3 is true. However, they all see the same game with the same results, land in the same location in the same health, and hear the same music. The benefits are all luxury. If you call races, classes and dungeons luxury items, then sure. That is not the game I'm hoping to play though. I would rather everyone on the same footing and if you want to ride a Figurine of Wonderous Power (Panther Mount) and I'm on a pony, I'm cool with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im sure you picked the prices to show it as outrageous. Once you have bought everything in the store, it would not average out to 50 or 100... more like $20 a month at most.
I think 30-40 is what GW is planing for. I think we will be looking at 14.95 a month for a training subscription per character, or a PLEX equivalent for 19.95 for a month of training. Add on another $15-$20 on cash shop items. If the subs were to give you training time to multiple characters, $50 to $100 isn't out of the question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Im sure you picked the prices to show it as outrageous. Once you have bought everything in the store, it would not average out to 50 or 100... more like $20 a month at most.I think 30-40 is what GW is planing for. I think we will be looking at 14.95 a month for a training subscription per character, or a PLEX equivalent for 19.95 for a month of training. Add on another $15-$20 on cash shop items. If the subs were to give you training time to multiple characters, $50 to $100 isn't out of the question.
They are looking at $30/month per player... two $15 subscriptions cover that...
$15-$20 a month on cash shop items is insane. I have only ever bought a PLEX once, and never payed into any cash shop in other games (the few Ive played).
Hell, I played SWTOR, payed the monthly subscription of $15 a month, got full access to everything in the game except cash shop stuff (most of it cosmetic or access to subscription stuff), and they still gave me cash shop points to spend in their MTX market.
So with $15 a month I got access to everything in the game...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen, we don't know for a fact that you can "quickly grab a potion off the MTX shop right before you get into a fight". The issue of when and how cash shop items are delivered is another point of debate that's been gone over, and most people would agree you can't go through a couple PvP encounters then restock in the middle of the wilderness through the cash shop. Obviously there has to be a balance drawn somewhere on the convenience of delivery; if the cash shop isn't convenient it will be unused because many times cash shop purchases are impulse, convenience buys, but if it's too convenient it could lead to undue and unfair advantage, as in the example above. I think there might have been a thread on this discussion already, but I don't possess the board wizardry of some others to summon it up for you. (hint hint) :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there might have been a thread on this discussion already, but I don't possess the board wizardry of some others to summon it up for you. (hint hint) :)
Subtle... :)
3. Or, what if the character had to visit an NPC Settlement in order to "take delivery" of a Cash Shop item. This seems like it would address the concern about bypassing a Siege.
I expect some variation on that general theme will end up being used.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Let's look at the advantage conferred by the situation where Goblin Balls in the coin market have enough volume that a marginal seller has negligible impact:
Anyone with cash can convert that cash into GB, into coin, which can then be converted to anything on the market.
How does that differ in principle from converting cash into skymetal into a subset of the things available for coin? (again, assuming that the marginal effect on the market is negligible)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still holding judgement on the Cash Shop since we haven't seen how they are implementing it. However, it feels to me as if they are already defending the cash shop and setting the stage so they can sell Classes, Races, Dungeons, Consumables and Equipment. I know Ryan has given me hope based on his earlier comments, however, the perception is still there for me based on how defensive this entire thread is.
To take a different example of monetization, EQN-Landmark is F2P*, that means free to access and character progress specifically. *Well about $90 for initial access with kickstarter-like perks.
Where you can pay cash is for:
1) Purchasing plots of land to own (buy from SOE)
2) Purchasing content from other players who sell their creations made in maya and other art programs. (Buy from other players)
3) If you make content to sell SOE tax 60% of that and you receive 40% of the price paid by a player for your art asset creation (Sell to other players; charged 60% by SOE)
There may be more payment options revealed possibly. So what has this to do with PFO? It suggests different payment models according to different designs.
So it is straight-forward to understand the above payment model, isn't it? Someone who likes modding may be able to make a lot of money which makes SOE money which makes content that players deem of value to use in their games.
To come back to PFO it's worth understanding their game game and then seeing if the pricing and systems of play work for players, game and developers?
1) Real time-based skill-training for a character at a basic "$15 per 30 days".
2) Plex system that ties into the economy successfully and allows option to dabble with the above.
So this suits players in various ways and devs and the question is it suits the game for profits going into adding more game systems.
I think the question is what is on the side which I'd call "extra features" eg extra races to the character skill-progression game system to me is extra. I assume the race is mostly graphical work and some lore work? So why not pay extra if I want Goblins or some cool race like that added? Seems good to me and good to Goblinworks and good to the game?
Similar to other features. Possibly again with classes for the work on graphics but the skills themselves should be from the sub as that is a growing game system. Eventually I want to see PFO as the central hub around which lots of spokes of spin-off features are added eg Emerald Tower and more that plug into the growing core game system of the open world River Kingdoms.
To end: Incan live without extra features sinking as the main game is growing in complexity and therefore enjoyment (for me) but these extras monetized as you can see from SOE are a great way of throwing in diversity in game objects, which people evidently do like.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have prepared the following graphic to better explain why we'll never sell an "all inclusive" subscription.
Here is a graphic that describes how MTX works.
This graph shows how we (and pretty much everyone else making games) conceptualizes the market.
The left-right axis represents the number of people who will pay for something in a game at a given price.
The up-down axis represents the cost of something in a game.
The box in the middle is the traditional subscription. It means that there are some number of people (x) on the left-right axis who will pay the fixed subscription price (y) on the up-down axis. This is how MMOs priced themselves until the past 5 years or so.
What we have all realized is that the box is a limiting factor, getting in the way of a lot of obtainable business.
To the right of the subscriber box are more people who would pay something to play, but who can't/won't pay the full subscription price. Extending this to the logical conclusion, somewhere to the right is a place where we find people who won't pay anything to play. They want a truly "free to play" game. But before we get to those people there are a lot of potential customers and a lot of potential revenue that we would like to access. From a design/business strategy, we have to figure out how to let these people pay less than a subscription but still have a fulfilling game experience without degrading the value of the subscription so that people who would have been subscribers pay less than the subscription.
This is all non-controversial, right? Nobody reading seriously objects to the idea that if we can get people to pay something, even if it is less than a full subscription price, we should try to get that money, so long as the benefits of paying scale down in some rational way from what you get if you pay the full subscription price, right?
It is the part of the chart above the subscribers where all the sturm un drang comes into the picture.
Standard economic theory assumes that the relationship between price and demand is elastic. It changes as you change either variable. If we make the price of a subscription higher (y), we shift the number of people (x) on the box to the left. Maybe we get more money from fewer people and the total is more than we get with the original price. But it's very likely that we get less; in fact, it's a virtual certainty that there is a point where raising the price generates less revenue. The only question is "where is that point", and that is a big fat unknown.
MTX allows us to avoid asking this question and potentially torpedoing the whole business. Instead of increasing the base subscription price, we can induce people to give us more money using MTX in addition to their subscription.
These are people who will pay more than the subscription price if we offer them things they think have value to buy. These are often people for whom the relationship between price and value is substantially different than the majority of our players. These are people who buy luxury goods at luxury prices because they have a lot of money and their disposable income is very high. We like them - per capita, they're our most valuable customers.
In Asia, where this business model first evolved, people are much more tolerant of the idea that some people are "buying win", that there's a correlation between the amount of money you spend and how good you are in the game. As those games (in Asia) are making money hand over fist, and have been for close to a decade, it's impossible to argue that the model doesn't work.
Our Asian developer friends all scoff at the following, and think we're insane: Western MMO developers think that the Western gamer audience would rebel against true "pay to win" mechanics, and that games which use those mechanics are doomed to fail. The only data point we have going for us is that none of the hugely successful Chinese or Korean MMOs have made a dent in the Western market, but it's very hard to use that as a proof that the fundamental business model is a failure. It may just be that those games are so culturally different than games Westerners want to play that they cannot gain traction, and that if a Western game went Pay to Win, it would be successful.
In spite of these doubts, we (collectively) Western developers have decided (at least for the time being) to avoid blatant pay to win mechanics. And some games, like World of Tanks, that had a relatively minor and benign form of Pay to Win have actually retreated and abandoned those mechanics.
So if we are not going to run a Pay to Win game, what can we sell the people in the area above the subscriber box?
We can sell them a lot of bling. It seems that for the time being, high priced Western MTX options are mostly eye candy. And there are people who will pay a lot of money for eye candy.
In order to make the eye candy attractive to our target customers - those willing to give us more than a subscription price - those things need to have a real-world cost in addition to the subscription, so that the elasticity of demand will mean that the more money they spend, the fewer people have the item they're buying. This exclusivity is the value they are paying for. If we remove the exclusivity, there's no value, and there won't be any buying activity.
Now here's the final factoid that you need to know: We have reason to suspect, based on information we're seeing from our peers, that the amount of money represented by the area over the subscriber square may be more than the total amount paid in by subscribers. In other words, this is not just a little extra revenue. It could double the revenue that we're generating. And trust me, making items for bling doesn't double the cost to operate the game service; we're talking almost pure profit on those sales.
To be totally clear: Our objective, as a business, is to make as much profit as we can. We think we can do that by maximizing the long term revenue of the game. Taking short term profits by dabbling in Pay to Win is, in our opinion a mistake which is why we won't do it. But there's no limit on what we'll charge or make if we think there's a market for it for items that don't constitute a meaningful mechanical advantage, and that don't distort or destroy the fundamental game system that is the player-driven economy. We cannot pursue that upside and at the same time devalue the offerings we're attempting to make by rolling them into a fixed price subscription. So we won't.
I hope that explains things clearly.
RyanD
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
$15 is the plan.
I have to say though, that $15 is almost certainly too low. That price was established in 2003. Due to inflation, it should be $19 today.
The MMO market is waiting for someone to make the first move to raise prices. So far, nobody has felt comfortable doing it, because the first game that does is going to be the very center of a howling firestorm of complaint from all directions about greed and developer idiocy. None of us want to be the first team through that door. But trust me, after someone goes to a $20/mo sub, virtually everyone else will too.
There was a chance that CCP would have been the first. They sell a subscription at 15 euro, and that subscription is effectively a $20 USD sub and they have no major resistance to that price. It was extensively discussed, but CCP, like everyone else, fears the drop in subscribers that could come with being the first to break the $15 price barrier.
So I'll tell you all in candor right now; if the market price for subs goes to $20, we'll be a part of the stampede to that price point. But it's unlikely in the extreme we'd be first in line for the firestorm.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
CCP fought the idea for a long time that they had a lot of players with multiple accounts. There are still people there who probably think it is an aberration, not the norm. Some attempts were made to quantify how many players had multiple accounts and none of them were satisfactory. It's just very hard to tell the difference, for example, between a person with 2 accounts, and a husband and a wife who share a credit card.
Of course, most of CCP's executives know that multiple accounts are very common, maybe even the norm. They're bright people. Still, it's hard to say with any sense of validation that "X percent" of players have multiple accounts.
DUST 514 is entirely run from microtransactions. They probably hoped to learn a lot about the business model from DUST. I'm privy to some of the behind-the-scenes decisions that led up to their failed attempt to introduce MTX to the main EVE Online game, and frankly, I think the only lesson that anyone should have taken away from that debacle was that certain people needed to be fired for incompetence, and that a better plan was needed to introduce the feature, not that EVE players were unwilling or unable to embrace an MTX system. Now of course they poisoned that well and it's unclear if and when that can be remediated. I'm sure there's much gnashing of teeth at the lost monetary upside.
If I know Hilmar, and I think I do, he remains committed in his heart to making a successful merger of MTX into EVE. He's just trying to figure out how to overcome the self-imposed obstacles to achieving that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan
I may be in the minority but I look on my monthly subscription the same way I view movie tickets. Considering the price increase to movie ticket from 2003 until today, I would have no problem paying a 20 sub fee for any game I am interested in playing.
This may be an interesting crowd forger poll to ask what monthly sub would we be willing to pay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It focuses on people.
If it focuses on the person and not an account, then shouldnt the Subscription box be fluctuating? Or does it consider everything above the box as money after the initial subscription?
Like you said in the Eve follow up, people have multiple accounts, in fact it was rare occasion when you ran into someone who only had one.
@ Ryan
I may be in the minority but I look on my monthly subscription the same way I view movie tickets. Considering the price increase to movie ticket from 2003 until today, I would have no problem paying a 20 sub fee for any game I am interested in playing.
This may be an interesting crowd forger poll to ask what monthly sub would we be willing to pay.
i like ur idea, so GW needs an X profit from a fixed value or will "bet" in the unlimited potential profit from whales spending in MTX.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
The EVE example of people paying for multiple accounts is a utility based value. In other words, 2x accounts gets you 2x the utility (you can have two characters training skills and logged in at the same time).
Bling MTX above the subscription price is a vanity value. In other words, some of that stuff has value because other people don't have it. (Some of it is convenience, so I can't say it's 100% vanity).
EVE-style multiple-subscriptions exist somewhere in the area above the subscription box. Some people are willing to pay more than a fixed subscription for more utility. We will get that benefit as well as there will be people who will want the utility of having multiple characters training at the same time time and the ability to have multiple characters logged in at the same time.
They're not mutually exclusive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd pay a 20$/month sub if the $ to € translation is done by the actual currency rate and not 1:1.Lhan was talking about that with DarkFall. Apparently, it was 40 US Dollars, or 40 Euros, regardless of the exchange rate. That's really messed up, it seems.
If that happens with PFO, I'll find a way to pay in Euros.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With the exception of World of Warcraft and EVE, every MMO worth discussing is now driven by Microtransactions. Star Wars, Rift, Lord of the Rings, Neverwinter, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry if this has already been covered, but...
The only reason EVE is not driven by Microtransactions is that CCP monumentally botched the roll-out of EVE's MTX store.
First, they opened with only the highest possible price tier of items available. Based on the conversion rate of PLEX and Aurum at the time, the most expensive item in the cash store was priced at the equivalent of $80. Nothing was available for $1, or $5.
Second, they opened an MTX store that only applied to a feature of the game that they hadn't written yet. It was the equivalent of selling fancy bows and crossbows in PFO before writing the code to fire them, or selling fancy familiars before it was possible to cast spells.
(Specifically, they sold fancy clothes and accessories for avatars in a system where all gameplay until that point had been conducted from the point of view of a spaceship, not an avatar. They introduced avatars at the same time, but each of those avatars was locked into its own virtual hotel room, alone, without even the ability to visit someone else's room. CCP has never opened the doors and allowed those avatars to interact with one another in any way. Avatar gameplay could have added a huge new dimension to EVE, but player outrage over the botched MTX roll-out and the locked doors essentially convinced CCP to abandon avatar gameplay for the foreseeable future.)
If CCP had handled the introduction of their MTX store more sensibly, EVE would probably have a thriving cash economy by now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to the I want to buy type items in a MTX shop.
Item one: A item that would make all my non-threaded gear that I have equipped on me be destroyed on my death.
Item Two: A box that I could keep in a town bank that would hold some amount of gold. That on my death would auto place in that town a assassin contract on who ever did the killing blow on me. Using the gold I had put into the box.
If we are going to have MTX. Lets make sure that the items are stuff we want to buy.
Do I have the right character? Tonight on Teamspeak, I though that you wanted to be in a lawful evil community, but now you feel that if your character is killed for this consensual PvP, there should be automated mechanism to place bounty on whomever was better than your character? If your character is better, they win. If your character can not deliver, there should be automatic bounty on the superior character that your character failed to defeat. (Which word describes this; How does the LE community feel about that.)
I see your fear. It seems if you do this it is only proper to return on you four fold. (that is called a gang war). Enjoy. but you are headed for CE! And your players competence is called to question to need this crutch? You do this, and word would spread about your uncertainty as to your character's skills.
If your character is a big bad LE character, why do you not make your own restitution instead of asking others to do what your character could not do initially?
OK, that is fair within the game. It seems to speak to a lack of confidence in your character. ?? Yes I also have uncertainty. but I do not insist in no reputation loss for unsanctioned PvP (esp, if my character loses).
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm generally fine with a subscription model supplemented by cash shop.
I want to enjoy PFO and therefore be happy to pay for the experience. In that context things which would upset me include:
"deliberately" making starting characters weak/unplayable, and then selling "convenience" products in the cash shop to make them playable. For instance making long distance overland movement unbearable and then selling teleport vouchers or boots of speed, or letting characters carry only a couple of items and then selling bags of holding.
Selling instantly available healing potions which could be used in tough PVE or PVP encounters to outlast and overcome a tough foe. Takes away the challenge of the game and could be construed as pay to win.
Another thing is I don't want to regret backing PFO in the context of the money I spent being poor value. Goblinworks isn't a charity. [some kickstarter developers seem to be grateful for kickstarter backers who took a gamble and provided initial funding to get a game going, ensuring those backers get good 'value', whereas seem to forget that very fast and erode the benefits kickstarter backers were promised]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What I find exciting about Pathfinder Online is that it is a virtual world run by an economic simulation**.
This generates 2 things which I value:
1. Experiences (emergent)
2. In-game achievements according to the economy and won by gameplay (and shared with friends vs enemies is in part what the value is) maybe this is (goals & social).
This appears to be CCP's formula. And so long as that is where the devs are spending sub money profits that is good.
I don't mind if they sell graphical objects for people if that makes them happy and makes cash for Goblinworks.
But if Goblinworks demonstrate 1. and 2. is being followed then I'll be happy and subbing.
I've got to say "bling" does not seem to have much value to me: It is maybe a graphical gratification change to experience but it seems very minor put that way as per 1. and if bought it has no prestige as per 2.
What I'd like is perhaps the player has have the prerequisite from a crafter and the skin is then bought from the MTX store? Or perhaps only crafters can purchase skins to add to their collection of making to order and charging to other players? So integrating the store into the gameplay?
=
Final word from me on this topic: Talking money is always going to be a haggle, so this topic could run and run on the fuel of emotion. But maybe to conceptualize the game as it is and then see how best to fit these extra ways to add MTX that blends with the sort of game being made?
**: It's interesting what SotA and EQN/L are doing with modding content and making content (eg tables in sota even) but those are, for me, only interesting. PFO generates genuine excitement about how players can use their brains to innovate gameplay as opposed to use tools to generate objects. That is more my type of fun though I hope to see many non-combat skills for gathering/harvesting diverse resources peculiar to a Druid's preferences: eg berries, herbs, fungi, potions, skins, butchering, wood-cutting etc etc which feed skills and the market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
$15 is the plan.
I have to say though, that $15 is almost certainly too low. That price was established in 2003. Due to inflation, it should be $19 today.
The MMO market is waiting for someone to make the first move to raise prices. So far, nobody has felt comfortable doing it, because the first game that does is going to be the very center of a howling firestorm of complaint from all directions about greed and developer idiocy. None of us want to be the first team through that door. But trust me, after someone goes to a $20/mo sub, virtually everyone else will too.
There was a chance that CCP would have been the first. They sell a subscription at 15 euro, and that subscription is effectively a $20 USD sub and they have no major resistance to that price. It was extensively discussed, but CCP, like everyone else, fears the drop in subscribers that could come with being the first to break the $15 price barrier.
So I'll tell you all in candor right now; if the market price for subs goes to $20, we'll be a part of the stampede to that price point. But it's unlikely in the extreme we'd be first in line for the firestorm.
I'm actually fine with 20$ a month.
Thank you for your board presentation on MTX and candor on what your aims with the MTX store are. Being clear on the fact that it will be Vanity and Convenience is a big help to set expectations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you for your board presentation on MTX and candor on what your aims with the MTX store are. Being clear on the fact that it will be Vanity and Convenience is a big help to set expectations.
I second that Thank You. It's pretty cool to have that kind of inside look at the MMO business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With parts of crafting being so heavily automated, I would really like to see the right to hire trainable crafting / gathering henchman for the same cost as an alt, or trade our destiny's twin for one.
They should train at the same rate as players, and have a skill tree comparable to an actual players. Their prowess in combat should be comparable to a ranger or druid's animal companion and but require training comparable to a normal player to reach max strength.
Think if it like you can go out and mine a node, or ask your henchman to do it. You can go manage your smithy, or manage it using your blacksmith henchman. You can play the cooking mini-game, or play it as your baker henchman.
I can pretty much guarantee I won't buy crafting alts, not because of the cost but because of the hassle and increased bandwith / processing power associated with running multiple accounts at a time.
I can almost guarantee I'd buy at least one henchman that gives me the functionality of an alt I can control from my main. Not including the DT I already have.
People are going to have mining alts. If this game is tab targeted there WILL be multiboxers fighting with multiple characters at once. It's just a question of whether that should just be for people willing to jump through the hoops, or if it should be easily available to everyone paying for the extra character. Do we want the money to go to additional software, faster connections, and better hardware, or do we want it to go to GoblinWorks and making this game better?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EVE-style multiple-subscriptions exist somewhere in the area above the subscription box. Some people are willing to pay more than a fixed subscription for more utility. We will get that benefit as well as there will be people who will want the utility of having multiple characters training at the same time time and the ability to have multiple characters logged in at the same time.
They're not mutually exclusive.
Multiple accounts still offer the advantage of added security (separate logins and passwords) and ease of resale. Multiple accounts also create some inconveniences for you in complicating your population count and weakening the deterrence value of a ban. Would there be any advantage offered to those who keep their characters on a single account, minor enough to be a good tradeoff to alleviate your inconvenience, but big enough to be a valuable tradeoff for the security and resale advantages?
We've been paying $15 subs since the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat.
Wasn't that Utnapishtim the Babylonian's boat? He got it, used, from some Akkadian called Atrahasis, who got it second-hand from Ziusudra, in Sumer. That adds at least 1000 years to the timeline. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With parts of crafting being so heavily automated, I would really like to see the right to hire trainable crafting / gathering henchman for the same cost as an alt, or trade our destiny's twin for one.
I don't understand what the material difference is between the henchman and an alt as a second character on your main account. Is it a character that gains skill at a normal rate, but *cannot* be dual boxed?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With parts of crafting being so heavily automated, I would really like to see the right to hire trainable crafting / gathering henchman for the same cost as an alt, or trade our destiny's twin for one.I don't understand what the material difference is between the henchman and an alt as a second character on your main account. Is it a character that gains skill at a normal rate, but *cannot* be dual boxed?
It's that the main and the henchman can both be controlled from a single client on one computer eliminating much of the hardware/bandwidth strain and hassle. Also the built in AI controlling it allows you to negate much of the advantage of multi-boxers without custom tailored programs and complex macros.
I'm currently doing a much more detailed write up.