Adding an option to play old instance without stats clamped would just solve everything

For someone calling so many ignorant, you dont seem to grasp what they are trying to get you to understand..

Personally, I find the idea of a landlord selling anything for a lump sum to a tenant would be unethical, but I fail to see the equivalent with this change.

"Mame.... You did sign the ToS... Legally, they do have the right."

Yes... So that's where it ends...

We both agree that it's unethical.... regardless of its legality.

The landlord thing anyways.... too bad that you don't see the comparison of a game selling things to build up a character... not just cosmetics.... actual build up... as the same thing.


One last shot:
See...
The tenants knew that they were only purchasing the cabinets to be used during the lease of their apartment with an understanding that they don't take the cabinets when they move out.... in a deal with the landlord who profited from its sale knowing that understanding....

See an ethical comparison there?

Then your argument is not against them changing how things work, its actually arguing against the game from being able to monetize. Because, in this scenario, it would be a hundred people living in the same house each with different wants. The piece in question is used by every tenant in the building, not just the individual who bought it. Multiple people bought the exact same thing, with the understanding that thing could change at any time. Some people who bought it are happy with the change (the change cost them nothing) and some are upset about the change.

The biggest problem here, is that the comparison just doesn't hold water. You are not the only one who bought said items... I have as well. So, why is it you have more rights over that product than I do?

It would be unethical if you hadn't agreed to the ToS. But you did. So it's not.

There's a difference between morals and ethics.

Whatever you have agreed to in the ToS is, when excercised, ethical. Whether you feel it is morally wrong is a different matter.

Seriously..... It's not wrong because they did it to lots of people?


Slum lords are only bad if they do it to one tenant??... Or they're not bad because some tenants don't know any better??

I dunno... Maybe because... I'm not an internet toady??

I don't know why you don't mind wasting $1,000 on a cabinet that you didn't get to use like you thought you would?
But, to each they're own.

I can't answer for you.... Maybe you're on really good medications... or maybe.. you really need some.

Two questions.

If that concept (running at full strength and getting full rewards in content a player has outgrown) is good for a game why do we see so little of it? In both online and single-player games it's something rarely seen (XP gains drop dramatically when facing NPCs that you have outleveled, for example).

If it's irrelevant why does a person need to get full rewards for running it?

Well said.

I'm seeing a trend a trend here.

Maybe, again, you need to understand the difference between ethics and morals.

Ethically, in your scenario, landlords are fine if they do that.

Morally, I (subjectively) would say they are not.

But you're arguing against a ToS that you have agreed to. You do not own your character, it's gear, or any of the money that you have spent over the years.

Moral arguments are a different kettle of fish, but if you are trying to argue that morally, that money you have spent means something, then I again refer you to the ToS, which explicitly states that that is not true.

The ethics of your argument are undermined by agreement to the ToS. Morally, then, you should have not agreed.

Is that clear?

Well for starters, this is not a cabinet. This is an MMORPG. You paid money over time to use the service. You don't own the service, you use the service while paying for it. You aren't happy with the service they offer anymore, you are free to stop using the service. That's how the world work. For any service. You can use a catering business, pay them way more than a thousand dollars but you are not using them the way YOU want, you use them the way THEY work. They didn't become staff at your restaurant or your personal chefs, they will keep doing the services according to what they do and no matter how entitled you feel you don't own a service because you paid a lot to it.

Welcome to adulthood. That's how the world works.

I'm getting a real giggle out of the lengths the anti clampers are going to, in an effort to twist a rather simplistic contract and act like lay lawyers, keep up the good work I'm going to be back momentarily with more coffee and cookies.

I think a lot of people, not yourself, don't understand that when it comes to online games you have zero rights, They can do whatever they want whenever they want and they make sure you sign a very specific contract to play. Legally they have the high ground and you hope they will be ethical and do right by you because capitalism dictates that screwing your customers to much gets you no customers.

People can spend whatever they want and it is their choice to do so and hopefully knowing full well they can be banned, abused, ditched, and lose everything they spent in a key stroke. Thus be very careful where you spend your money. Free players may be the smartest people around because if they don't like a change they lose nothing by just moving on.

I like the game, I think they have been fair mostly, I get they have hard balancing act, and you can never make everyone happy. I think it is obvious and really indisputable, on a rational level, to deny a choice in stat clamping would have avoided the justified dissatisfaction of paying customers opposed to the clamp. Nothing we say here to each other will make a change in game, the money will decide that. However there is a satisfaction in posting for the devs your feelings on the topic.

There was always going to be some kind of tradeoff for them opening up older content for Mark gains again, though. They weren't going to make a change like that without making another change to bring things back into the balance they desired.

My biggest concern/fear was that they'd do price increases to account for the flood of Marks that would be coming into the game. Seeing costs on things like Mainframes and Artifact catalysts go up/go back up would be bad enough, but I REALLY didn't want to see gear prices skyrocket again. At one point the cheapest piece of (at the time) T5 gear was the face piece and that would run you over 15,000 Marks to pick up.

Not fun.

So I can easily live with the clamp. My runtimes on content have actually dropped a bit (Last Son of Krypton used to take me just under 5 minutes before the clamp, now it's about 3 and a half minutes per run) and I can dip back into older content (which is still easy) to tackle some feats I've yet to complete (looking at you, Paradox Reaper feat in Central City LOL) AND get Marks for it.

Beats having to run every single available piece of content every day just to make sure I can get a mask in a timely fashion.

I think if they were to unclamp the entire game again and allow source marks to be rewarded that increase in price/inflation would be all but inevitable when people aren't just farming FOS3 in a group in 5-6 minutes but are instead farming it in 2-3 minutes by themselves.

It's realistically one of the biggest issues the "clamp opponents" don't seem to want to acknowledge, they keep living this dream that they'll be able to farm marks endlessly all day at a fraction of the time and not have a flow on effect when they undermine any semblance of grind present in no time at all.

Here, this is the part of the TOS you need to read.

You hereby agree not to assert and/or bring any cause of action, claim and/or suit against Daybreak, our affiliates, and/or our licensors and suppliers arising out of and/or related to (a) any claim that you own any Virtual Currency, digital downloads, or Virtual Items, (b) any claim for the "value" of any Virtual Currency, game cards, digital downloads, or Virtual Items, (c) any claim for the loss of any "value" of any Virtual Currency, game cards, digital downloads, or Virtual Items arising out of and/or related to any acts or omissions of Daybreak, our affiliates, our service providers, and/or our licensors and suppliers which is/are permitted under the Daybreak Terms of Service and/or any other Daybreak policy, and/or (d) any claim that the "value" of any Virtual Currency, game cards, digital downloads, or Virtual Items has diminished in value as a result of any modification that Daybreak, our affiliates, our service providers, and/or our licensors made to any Daybreak Game(s) or Daybreak Game(s) related services.

Yeah... morals and ethics got mixed in a "Which way is it really wrong" twist of words..... Who cares?

Whatever aspect... it ain't all that right.... That's all that matters.

And, that all that matters in the face of the ToS...

You can satisfy yourself all night long with the thing... Don't care.

You sychophants just yammering on about the ToS... Like your proud that the company can screw you over any time they want...
are just crazy.

Legal doesn't equal right... I don't care that you've drank the Kool-Aid.... It never will.

Still no. That has nothing to do with real world currency.

SW and theCon were debating their ownership rights. The entire section is about Virtual Currency. Virtual Currency doesn't have anything at all to do with their conversation. It should be obvious but their debate is about the value of their actual currency. ie. Person X pays real money and receives X service in return.