What's interesting about this to me is the wow tokens weren't introduced until pretty recently. There was botting for sure in Vanilla, BC, and wrath but it by no means completely destroyed the economy from what I remember.

Maybe I wasn't in the know enough but I don't see why it would be different now than it was then.

Luthilan wrote: ↑

5 years ago

What's interesting about this to me is the wow tokens weren't introduced until pretty recently. There was botting for sure in Vanilla, BC, and wrath but it by no means completely destroyed the economy from what I remember.

Maybe I wasn't in the know enough but I don't see why it would be different now than it was then.

Quite the opposite actually. Playing on high population servers that were notorious for PvP, the presence of bots and inflation was all too obvious. Where there was a demand for gold, there were bots. The most obvious answer here would be that you simply dont realize the inflation if you are silo'd to a specific server, this just becomes your reality. "Oh yea, essence of fire are just 35g. They always have been"... Meanwhile on the low pop server with very few bots due to low demand, essence of fire are 5-10g.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The way I see it, players will buy gold either way and there is no strong evidence to indicate that the token itself increase the quantity of gold being purchased and traded.
...
What is your argument against the token?

Very simple. I tried BFA on a new account (with no heirlooms). After realising that the leveling zones are dead and the leveling is a drag, I just wanted to check the end-game. I didn't want to use the one lvl110 boost I had (nor buy an another boost), so I bought one wow-token and sold it for 140k gold, allowing me to buy all max slot bags, all heirlooms, and more.
This immediately robbed me of any pleasure I could have had for upgrading items after playing for 30 minutes, and I logged off.
The difference is that if there was no wow token, I would in no way go to a shady 3rd party gold selling website to put (a) my credit card and (b) my battlenet account (which I've had for ages) at risk. The wow token was (a) convenient (b) legal. Buying from a shady 3rd person is not.

This isn't to say that noone will buy gold in classic because I know people do / did. I'm just saying that far less people will be willing to risk it because it is inconvenient and illegal.

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The way I see it, players will buy gold either way and there is no strong evidence to indicate that the token itself increase the quantity of gold being purchased and traded.
...
What is your argument against the token?

Very simple. I tried BFA on a new account (with no heirlooms). After realising that the leveling zones are dead and the leveling is a drag, I just wanted to check the end-game. I didn't want to use the one lvl110 boost I had (nor buy an another boost), so I bought one wow-token and sold it for 140k gold, allowing me to buy all max slot bags, all heirlooms, and more.

Well, I hope your self control increases before Classic, because you will have the opportunity to buy gold from gold sellers. If all it takes is the option, you will have the option to buy gold in Classic. The 3rd party sites will be far from shady and will have glowing user reviews. Check out some of the private server sites. They aren't shady at all (some are, but others are pretty decent). I obviously wont advertise any here, but where there is big money to be made, competent business people will commercialize the sale of gold and offer premier services. With the value of gold selling, they stand to make a lot of money from building a name and a reputation. You can be assured that this will be the case.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The way I see it, players will buy gold either way and there is no strong evidence to indicate that the token itself increase the quantity of gold being purchased and traded.
...
What is your argument against the token?

Very simple. I tried BFA on a new account (with no heirlooms). After realising that the leveling zones are dead and the leveling is a drag, I just wanted to check the end-game. I didn't want to use the one lvl110 boost I had (nor buy an another boost), so I bought one wow-token and sold it for 140k gold, allowing me to buy all max slot bags, all heirlooms, and more.

Well, I hope your self control increases before Classic, because you will have the opportunity to buy gold from gold sellers. If all it takes is the option, you will have the option to buy gold in Classic. The 3rd party sites will be far from shady and will have glowing user reviews. Check out some of the private server sites. They aren't shady at all (some are, but others are pretty decent). I obviously wont advertise any here, but where there is big money to be made, competent business people will commercialize the sale of gold and offer premier services. With the value of gold selling, they stand to make a lot of money from building a name and a reputation. You can be assured that this will be the case.

It sounds like you just quoted the part from my post that supports your ideology the best, whereas I've clearly stated

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The difference is that if there was no wow token, I would in no way go to a shady 3rd party gold selling website to put (a) my credit card and (b) my battlenet account (which I've had for ages) at risk. The wow token was (a) convenient (b) legal. Buying from a shady 3rd person is not.

This isn't to say that noone will buy gold in classic because I know people do / did. I'm just saying that far less people will be willing to risk it because it is inconvenient and illegal.

I'm not arguing against "competent business people will commercialize the sale of gold and offer premier services". There will be gold sellers. The difference is your "average joe" (in this case, me) will not be going out of their way to search / ask around for (i) which gold selling sites are trustable - which ties back to my original argument that it is inconvenient, and (ii) put their battlenet account at risk.

Also you are comparing private servers selling gold vs. selling gold on official Classic servers. I'm sure the ways for Blizzard to catch gold buyers has improved drastically (I have no proof for or against this, but it just seems logical).

As a final note, as others have also stated, I think adding the wow-token to Classic servers will do more damage than good - not economy wise but for the general health of the game. The major selling point for Classic is to show that old school gaming (grindy, no MTX) is still what many players yearn for. By adding the wow-token (a sanctioned way of buying gold) to Classic, you are making the game pay to win officially, going against the values that Classic/Vanilla represents/represented.

I feel like this is not a "is buying gold via blizzard or 3rd party better or worse for players and/or economy" issue (maybe you are right, maybe having wow-token IS better for the game economy on the long run), but a rather "will including the wow-token have an adverse effect on how Classic is represented and perceived?" issue and the answer to this question would be a resounding YES.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Where is the source on this though? How do we know that the token increases the amount of gold being purchased?

This is all about a hypothetical situation that probably will never happen so you shouldn't be so hung up on a source because there isn't one out there to support either argument. (Honestly I think you know this and are using it as a blanket defense to hide behind wanting to be able to buy gold without getting banned). You can't get undeniable proof for either side, but you can use basic logic. The WOW token gives players have a way to buy gold easily, without risk out being banned, that is supported by blizzard. The general player base is more likely to buy gold when this is an option then buying it on a sketchy gold farming website.

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I'm not arguing against "competent business people will commercialize the sale of gold and offer premier services". There will be gold sellers. The difference is your "average joe" (in this case, me) will not be going out of their way to search / ask around for (i) which gold selling sites are trustable - which ties back to my original argument that it is inconvenient, and (ii) put their battlenet account at risk.

The token is certainly more convenient than buying gold from a 3rd party, which is why it invalidates their business model. There is no doubt about that. Without the competition of the token, the 3rd party sites become the next most convenient source and thus get the business.

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Also you are comparing private servers selling gold vs. selling gold on official Classic servers. I'm sure the ways for Blizzard to catch gold buyers has improved drastically (I have no proof for or against this, but it just seems logical).

I am using private servers as a metric, and I'll tell you why. Gold doesn't matter in retail WoW, yet there are still bots being created/used, even though farming gold is trivial and the token is available. The overhead for an account in Classic will be closer to a private server(free), than it is in retail. No base cost for the game and it will be inclusive for players who have an active sub for retail.

I'd like to isolate this snip:

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

which gold selling sites are trustable - which ties back to my original argument that it is inconvenient, and (ii) put their battlenet account at risk.

Are they though? If you get banned in Overwatch, your WoW account is fine. If you have several WoW accounts tied to one Bnet, and one gets banned, the others are fine. Why are we assuming that getting banned in Classic will have any effect on your retail account?

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

As a final note, as others have also stated, I think adding the wow-token to Classic servers will do more damage than good - not economy wise but for the general health of the game. The major selling point for Classic is to show that old school gaming (grindy, no MTX) is still what many players yearn for. By adding the wow-token (a sanctioned way of buying gold) to Classic, you are making the game pay to win officially, going against the values that Classic/Vanilla represents/represented.

This is valuable perspective and I can totally respect this sort of position. Honestly, time will tell. Its hard to say what would be better or worse. I tend to think the impact of gold farmers will have a DRAMATIC effect and will definitely be worse, but I can also see the counter-argument. The token does force you to sacrifice a certain set of principals that maintain the integrity of the game. Even if this hurts the economy more and is more damaging to the virtual health of the game.

Gallow wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I feel like this is not a "is buying gold via blizzard or 3rd party better or worse for players and/or economy" issue (maybe you are right, maybe having wow-token IS better for the game economy on the long run), but a rather "will including the wow-token have an adverse effect on how Classic is represented and perceived?" issue and the answer to this question would be a resounding YES.

I think you're right. There would be HUGE hurdles to overcome with player perception. Though they were able to rebrand sharding as layering. I think they would likely use a similar type of diplomacy to coerce the audience into accepting the token. They could call it a buddy pass or something? Whatever they chose to go with would probably work, if they played their cards right.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Where is the source on this though? How do we know that the token increases the amount of gold being purchased?

Like a lot of this discussion, it is based on anecdotal experience from those discussing the topics. From our standpoint we feel this will occur, from your standpoint and opinion you think it wont. I don't think Blizzard will likely release information to confirm one way or another on this matter.

Sierick wrote: ↑

5 years ago

This is all about a hypothetical situation that probably will never happen so you shouldn't be so hung up on a source because there isn't one out there to support either argument. (Honestly I think you know this and are using it as a blanket defense to hide behind wanting to be able to buy gold without getting banned).

I have provided sources throughout the conversation for claims I have made. Posters said botting wasn't a concern and used Blizzards anti cheat as a blanket solution to botting. I showed a video with an active bot that currently works in BFA. This invalidates all of the arguments for Blizzards anti cheat software. A bot exists. It isn't even a good bot... and its free... and it isn't getting users banned. Imagine when this game has millions of users and a dev's are incentivized to create good bots and charge 30-40$ for them?

Sierick wrote: ↑

5 years ago

You can't get undeniable proof for either side, but you can use basic logic. The WOW token gives players have a way to buy gold easily, without risk out being banned, that is supported by blizzard. The general player base is more likely to buy gold when this is an option then buying it on a sketchy gold farming website.

We have private servers as proof. Botting is a nightmare. Dismissing privates anticheat software is silly. Does Blizzard have better anticheat software? Yes... Of course silly. But there are still bots CURRENTLY working in BFA. So discussing Blizz's anticheat is redundant. Why would the Classic community behave any differently than a private community? They wont. There will be a demand for gold. Bots will satiate that demand. Bots are working despite Blizzards anti cheat. Botting is an issue in BFA but will grow in size when gold becomes valuable. In fact we may find the Classic community is even more casual and more inclined to purchase gold than the private server community. I don't see this as a stretch.

Why will this time potentially be worse than retail vanilla? The modern generation of gamers who are accustomed to micro-purchases and used to entering their credit cards on a variety of sites. The social stigma of buying gold is drastically different due to buying boosts and gold in retail. The overhead of running a bot is cheaper NOW than it was during retail vanilla. The demand for gold now will likely be higher than it was back then due to people having had the token for so many years and becoming accustomed to readily available gold. The accessibility of bots is easier now with guides/tutorials and free downloads. The inclusive cost of having free access to Classic with a BFA account may encourage semi-interested users to run a bot in Classic even though they aren't invested in Classic, simply because they have free access to the game. I could go on and on...

To be clear, I don't think the game will launch with a token, nor do I think it should. I think that the token preserves a better economic health for the game at the cost of our own principals in the long run. I think that the token may be a reality during Classic at some point and that it would be a wise implementation for Blizzard. Bots are inevitable, Blizz's anti cheat, as good as it is, isn't good enough. The token is a quick fix solution to a gigantic problem, but it doesn't come without its own costs. The private server community offers an excellent insight into what Classic may look like without a token and that reality is bleak.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Where is the source on this though? How do we know that the token increases the amount of gold being purchased?

Like a lot of this discussion, it is based on anecdotal experience from those discussing the topics. From our standpoint we feel this will occur, from your standpoint and opinion you think it wont. I don't think Blizzard will likely release information to confirm one way or another on this matter.

Pservers offer a great prototype for Classic. So my opinion is mostly based on what has/is happening. I supplemented this with video evidence of bots working in BFA despite Blizzards superior anti-cheat software. My own anecdotal experience and my own conjecture comes into play with the demands of gold and the psychology of the modern gamer. Make no mistake, botting will be an issue, but to what extent? I believe that the modern gamer will compound these issues and we have a recipe for disaster if we choose to avoid the token. See above comment.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I'll say that I am pro token

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I don't think the game will launch with a token, nor do I think it should.

So you want WOW tokens to be added after launch at some point not to limit gold sale but instead to limit botting. What phase do you want them added in?

Sierick wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I'll say that I am pro token

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I don't think the game will launch with a token, nor do I think it should.

So you want WOW tokens to be added after launch at some point not to limit gold sale but instead to limit botting. What phase do you want them added in?

Yes. Let players play. Let the economy stabilize. Assess the botting situation, make a judgement call after that and determine if tokens need to be implemented. If and when they decide the token will mitigate damages/loss, use the token. At a certain point this threshold will be reached and I would use the token at that time. As far as phases, I cant say.

Edit: We dont even know the duration of phases at this point so I would be speaking completely out of turn.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Make no mistake, botting will be an issue, but to what extent?

I think this is where the whole argument kind of falls over. No one knows what will occur and to what extent, be it botting for fishing, be it gold farming and inflation.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Assess the botting situation, make a judgement call after that and determine if tokens need to be implemented.

Basically this. If they find that they can't stop bots, they may look to rely on tokens. My hope is they have enough success deterring bots to avoid it, but it may end up unavoidable. Only time will tell, until then, we will rely on conjecture

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Make no mistake, botting will be an issue, but to what extent?

I think this is where the whole argument kind of falls over. No one knows what will occur and to what extent, be it botting for fishing, be it gold farming and inflation.

Botting was an issue in retail vanilla. Botting is an issue on private. Botting is an issue in BFA. It's a stretch to assume it will be an issue in Classic? Interesting...

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

assess the botting situation, make a judgement call after that and determine if tokens need to be implemented.

Basically this. If they find that they can't stop bots, they may look to rely on tokens. My hope is they have enough success deterring bots to avoid it, but it may end up unavoidable. Only time will tell, until then, we will rely on conjecture

Well, we know they cant stop bots. That isn't conjecture. I linked a video with botting. They will need to determine when the cost of the token outweighs the damages that are caused without it. I personally believe this is an inevitability...

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

It's a stretch to assume it will be an issue in Classic? Interesting...

I never said they will stop botting, please find my post stating that they can stop botting completely. Let me quote myself from earlier in case you didn't read it:

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I want Blizzard to continue to work on their security tech to prevent as many bots as possible and be ruthless with the ban hammer/legal threats. There will always be bots, so focus on reducing the bulk of them so we can just play classic as true to the vanilla experience as possible.

The conjecture is about the prevalence of bots, how impactful will they be? How much can Blizz stamp them out? It's anecdotal and conjecture. Linking a fishing bot != bots running riot in Classic. Pserver != Classic and Vanilla != Classic. Classic hasn't existed, we don't know how many or how invasive the bots will be. Blizzard can't stop all the bots, but I hope they can try to stop a lot of them. Like I said in my last post:

Selexin wrote: Basically this. If they find that they can't stop bots, they may look to rely on tokens. My hope is they have enough success deterring bots to avoid it, but it may end up unavoidable.

I think that pretty much sums it up. They will avoid token on launch, but if they can't prevent botting to a large degree, they will likely turn to tokens. Obviously the preference of the majority of the community is to be more like vanilla and not have tokens, but again, they may eventually require it.

what am I missing with tokens? I feel like if player A farms for 3 hours and gets 100g, then player B spends his own money to buy a token, player A gets free play time and player B gets gold that was naturally produced by the in game economy.
No one "spawns" gold, no part of the economy is messed with. The amount of time player B saved in not farming his own gold probably is much less than player A gains in free game time (hopefully), so is the problem that player A will keep farming more gold which inflates amounts of gold?

To answer the initial question, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter too much. Since no new gold is "spawned" from nowhere I feel like it can't really change things too much. I think that Classic will be at its best if Blizzard allows the community to do massive, population wide (active classic player only) votes on things like this, and will allow for changes to gradually be added to the game. This would also hopefully be the avenue they'd choose to use to introduce features from future patches.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The conjecture is about the prevalence of bots, how impactful will they be? How much can Blizz stamp them out? It's anecdotal and conjecture.

I always giggle when I see people highlight that we're participating in conjecture on a forum that discusses a game that hasn't been released. It's as if this is an attempt to detract from the conversation or to invalidate the conversation entirely... Why even participate? While we are sharing our personal opinions, those opinions are based on a variety of factors. My post was based on files found in the Classic beta, bots that currently exist in retail, the prevalence of botting on private and my own opinion on the future. This isn't meaningless drivel, and if you don't feel that its valuable, why participate? It seems like every conversation on this forum eventually leads to one party claiming "CONJECTURE"! I'll give you some insight, the entire premise of this forum is built on conjecture. Just because we are operating within the realm of incomplete information, does not mean that the discussions that are had are worthless.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I think that pretty much sums it up. They will avoid token on launch, but if they can't prevent botting to a large degree, they will likely turn to tokens.

They cant prevent botting, as can be seen with the video linked of players botting in BFA. I guess we are both in agreeance that they will eventually turn to tokens.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Obviously the preference of the majority of the community is to be more like vanilla and not have tokens, but again, they may eventually require it.

Yes, for now. The #nochanges movement is strong. It has derailed a lot of important talking pieces and silences a lot of important discussions... The only thing that has had more changes than the final product of Classic that we will be receiving is the definition of #nochanges by those who support the movement. "No changes, but I wouldn't be opposed to some increased difficulty"... "No changes, especially not graphics! But some of these modern graphic updates and increased ground clutter are nice"... "No changes! But layering isnt so bad, and its only temporary"... I think the community will come around, they just need time and a bit of diplomacy.

snickerwicket wrote: ↑

5 years ago

what am I missing with tokens? I feel like if player A farms for 3 hours and gets 100g, then player B spends his own money to buy a token, player A gets free play time and player B gets gold that was naturally produced by the in game economy.
No one "spawns" gold, no part of the economy is messed with. The amount of time player B saved in not farming his own gold probably is much less than player A gains in free game time (hopefully), so is the problem that player A will keep farming more gold which inflates amounts of gold?

To answer the initial question, I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter too much. Since no new gold is "spawned" from nowhere I feel like it can't really change things too much. I think that Classic will be at its best if Blizzard allows the community to do massive, population wide (active classic player only) votes on things like this, and will allow for changes to gradually be added to the game. This would also hopefully be the avenue they'd choose to use to introduce features from future patches.

You are looking at the situation objectively at an individual level. The greater economy isn't impacted (to the same degree) but the token itself ACKNOWLEDGES a pay to win element that exists with or without it. The highlight here is that people are opposed to the token based on principal. Regardless if gold is being traded all around them, they would rather turn a blind eye to the game and play in blissful ignorance. However, the token could increase the gold that is being traded. There is no evidence to confirm this, but this is the statement that people echoing opposition for the token are concerned with; they aren't wrong, they just don't have any evidence to support this claim.

What we know is that bots exist. They are an issue and they likely will be an issue in Classic. Do we sacrifice our own principals to preserve the economy of the game or do we sacrifice the economic health of the game to preserve our integrity? If so, why? It's an interesting conversation.

Edit: final sentence didnt make sense. Reformatted

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

What we know is that bots exist. They are an issue and they likely will be an issue in Classic. Do we sacrifice our own principals to preserve the economy of the game or do we sacrifice the economic health of the game to preserve our integrity? If so, why? It's an interesting conversation.

While the conversation is ongoing, it appears most people discussing in this particular thread would prefer that we could avoid tokens, as it appears to be a sore point from players retail experience. I don't think everything that is discussed is conjecture on these forums, but stating that something is guaranteed to happen in a game launch that hasn't happened, is fraught with some level of conjecture. Discussions are important, although you do seem to be quite defensive about tokens when people raise their own personal views on them, similar to layering.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

What we know is that bots exist. They are an issue and they likely will be an issue in Classic. Do we sacrifice our own principals to preserve the economy of the game or do we sacrifice the economic health of the game to preserve our integrity? If so, why? It's an interesting conversation.

While the conversation is ongoing, it appears most people discussing in this particular thread would prefer that we could avoid tokens, as it appears to be a sore point from players retail experience. I don't think everything that is discussed is conjecture on these forums, but stating that something is guaranteed to happen in a game launch that hasn't happened, is fraught with some level of conjecture.

The word token will send most players into a flurry. If you separate yourself from your emotions, the #nochanges movement and look at what we know, it begins to get a bit more challenging to dismiss the token. I'm not saying that it is the clear choice, but there is certainly a case to be made for the token (a strong case). It is no different than other changes that had to be made. If the token is used, they will need to rebrand it so players will accept it.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Discussions are important, although you do seem to be quite defensive about tokens when people raise their own personal views on them, similar to layering.

I posted the thread and people are putting a lot of effort into their responses. Its my responsibility to reply. Not being defensive at all. I didnt create the post anticipating that everyone would be onboard, quite the opposite actually. Was looking forward to stimulating some conversation and hearing opinions. If you go back to my original post you will see that I mentioned:

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Is the token pay to win? Yes. Is it the lesser of two evils? I would argue that it is. What is your argument against the token? Are you opposed based on the principal? Do you have evidence to suggest that the token increases the gold being purchased and thus making the game MORE pay to win? Look forward to hearing your thoughts.

I had anticipated this idea would be met with opposition and that the opposition would be primarily based on principal. I still think the conversation is worth having! =)

@Stfuppercut, the conversations are always worth having, although sometimes your tone comes across quite defensive, and you tend to shut down peoples own opinions or experiences (because they are personal opinions) which you have asked them to share. That is the problem with a text based media though, things can be misunderstood or misconstrued.

As I said before, tokens may be required as a 'necessary evil' eventually - but I think it may go down badly, even if it is the right solution to an ongoing problem.

Selexin wrote: ↑

5 years ago

@Stfuppercut, the conversations are always worth having, although sometimes your tone comes across quite defensive, and you tend to shut down peoples own opinions or experiences (because they are personal opinions) which you have asked them to share. That is the problem with a text based media though, things can be misunderstood or misconstrued.

As I said before, tokens may be required as a 'necessary evil' eventually - but I think it may go down badly, even if it is the right solution to an ongoing problem.

It would be easy to drop a safe post without making myself vulnerable. I think to highlight a talking point and outline my opinion and then have a debate/discussion. Conversations like these allow me to challenge my own opinions and challenge the opinions of others! You and I have had several of these back and forths... You've said you enjoyed them and I've even had the pleasure of winning you over on layering. I chalk that up to a positive outcome. An outcome that isn't possible with a wishy-washy stance in a neutral tone that attempts to appease the needs/feelings of everyone... Sometimes we go days without a solid post to draw some attention, so there is nothing wrong with choosing a provocative topic and hearing eachother out. I for one feel that the token should be used, and I'm okay with outlining my stance and hearing people out. I will also challenge any other opinions that get posted because that creates good debate and is interesting to read.

The token is the nuclear answer to a global threat (botting/gold selling). You don't start the war with the nuke, but you keep it in your arsenal and acknowledge that using it is inevitable. Now THAT is a provocative statement!

Would prefer buying gold from the chinese (venezuelan now?) just like old times.. #NoChanges

The token is the nuclear answer to a global threat (botting/gold selling). You don't start the war with the nuke, but you keep it in your arsenal and acknowledge that using it is inevitable. Now THAT is a provocative statement!

When I was a broke kid I would have killed to have an in game way to earn more game time, that in and of itself makes me feel ok with tokens as a concept. I don't see anyone getting hurt in this transaction, I would have gladly given someone in game gold for game time back in the day and I'd do it now too.
I guess I don't feel like tokens are pay to win in as much as you can't really pay to "win" world of warcraft. It would be the equivalent of playing Pokemon and paying real money to get a bunch of rare candies, you missed out on the whole game! What are you going to do now, just chill and do battlegrounds with whatever gear you can buy on the auction house?

snickerwicket wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The token is the nuclear answer to a global threat (botting/gold selling). You don't start the war with the nuke, but you keep it in your arsenal and acknowledge that using it is inevitable. Now THAT is a provocative statement!

When I was a broke kid I would have killed to have an in game way to earn more game time, that in and of itself makes me feel ok with tokens as a concept. I don't see anyone getting hurt in this transaction, I would have gladly given someone in game gold for game time back in the day and I'd do it now too.
I guess I don't feel like tokens are pay to win in as much as you can't really pay to "win" world of warcraft. It would be the equivalent of playing Pokemon and paying real money to get a bunch of rare candies, you missed out on the whole game! What are you going to do now, just chill and do battlegrounds with whatever gear you can buy on the auction house?

It would mean I could easily buy everything I wanted for my character on day 1 of reaching 60, making getting pre raid a lot easier.. I would not mind a token too much considering I used it in Retail to get things I wanted (black market auction thingy), but it would probably kill of some of the fun of gearing.