@BK47 So I'm getting the impression from the responses to what I've said so far is that my main criticism is being a bit misinterpreted and people are focusing specifically on the preconceptions of what pay-to-win means. I guess a better term for what I'm trying to describe is pay-to-play-actively or pay-to-have-fun but those aren't real terms anybody uses lol.

What I'm trying to say is less that there is such a horrible disatvange against free-to-play users but rather that there is a pretty different user experience and that the gameplay is structured in such a way that it actively encourages you to pay to have a more engaging experience. When put all into words it doesn't sound so bad because obviously the site should be compensated for running.

However, I am and always will be against arbitrary limits to gameplay to encourage more money spending. It may not be intentional, but the style of slowing players down every step of the way (24+ hr hoards? then 12+ hour rests? have fun playing with your pet exactly once every two days?) is exactly how mobile games are set up to farm money from players who are almost-but-not-quite engaged in a very interesting and fun user experience. That's mostly my point here. Its slow, and things get in your way often. I'm sure part of this is meant to be in the hopes of preserving the economy and having things maintain healthy levels of value over time but in my opinion it is just not fun.

But there are plenty of people in this thread who say they like that style of game (mostly, the supporters haha) because they don't have to always be on top of things or prefer a more casual experience. For me this is beyond casual when it gets into "you literally can't do anything else for another 2 days or more" but there's room to improve that over time with more content which is again why I keep trying to say I'm reserving major judgment as the site is in very early access haha.