These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Now that the botters and RMTers are banned...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#21 - 2012-04-04 20:30:05 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.
Yeah, no. That's not P2W for the simple reason that you're not buying any "win" — you're trading the exact same things that everyone else already have. That's, at best, RMT or just plain old MT (but not really, since you're not converting money to items).

So yes, it's pretty stupid when people make up their own ad-hoc definitions of things.
Ocih
Space Mermaids
#22 - 2012-04-04 20:32:44 UTC
Plex isn't pay to win. A Plex bought Adaddon, a mission grind Abaddon both die just as easy. Plex is pay to lose.
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#23 - 2012-04-04 20:32:47 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Vanir Tsero wrote:
You clearly don't understand what "Pay to Win" actually is.

Pay To Win is where you pay real money for ships that are not obtainable in game with Isk.

For Example:

If CCP Sold a Tech 4 Battlecruiser for $25.00 That is considered Pay to Win.
If CCP Sold Tech 3 Ammo for $15.00 for a count of 5,000 That is considered Pay To Win.

If CCP Sold an In-Game item for $20.00 that can be traded in game for in-game currency... That is NOT Pay To Win.
Why? Because it gives noone an advantage. The 600,000,000 ISK I got from selling the Plex on the market, 7,000 other players just made by running Incursions for a few hours.

Your ignorance bothers me for some reason. :(


Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.

End of story.

Feel free to argue little boy - mere words will not spare you from being wrong and dumb.


Yoiu're an idiot and wrong,

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#24 - 2012-04-04 20:35:16 UTC
And I thought I started bad threads.
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
#25 - 2012-04-04 20:38:41 UTC
Graic Gabtar wrote:
And I thought I started bad threads.



Your bad threads are still just as bad as somebody who pays to have a bad thread made.

Do you smell what the Lock's cooking?
Dalmont Delantee
Gecko Corp
#26 - 2012-04-04 20:40:15 UTC
Aranakas wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
Aranakas wrote:
Ban PLEX. All pay-to-win must go!


You could get a job and benefit from selling at times aswel.



Nope, spending real money for fake money is pointless. Also unfair to those playing the game.


ROFL someone doesn't realise that the isk that you get from selling a plex is money from someone who's worked for it....you are just swapping that item for isk.

Bit like getting an officer item and selling it *sighs*

But then people don't actually care about how things work, they just get stupid.
Prince Kobol
#27 - 2012-04-04 20:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Plex never has been, and currently is not in anyway P2W.

You purchase 10 Plex and sell them all in game.

You now have say 5bil isk.

So what?

What kind of advantage does give you over other players?

Can you get some special ship that no other player who hasn't purchase plex can get?

Do you get access to agents that somebody who hasn't purchased a plex can get?

Can you access systems that player who haven't purchase can not get into?

The only difference between you and somebody who has not purchased plex is that they are the price of those plex better of financially in rl.

P2W is when by spending rl money you are able to acquire an item, usually better, then what other players are only able to get in game.

So for a quick example..

In game item..

Sword of Doom - Gives 250 ICPR, 250 Morale, +10% Melee Damage

P2W item only available in a store for $25

Sword of Ultimate Pwnage and Butthurt - Gives 500 ICPR, 500 Morale, +20% Melee Damage, +10% Block Defence, +10% on all resists.

That is P2W...
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-04-04 20:47:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Jacob Staffuer
Tippia wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.
Yeah, no. That's not P2W for the simple reason that you're not buying any "win" — you're trading the exact same things that everyone else already have. That's, at best, RMT or just plain old MT (but not really, since you're not converting money to items).

So yes, it's pretty stupid when people make up their own ad-hoc definitions of things.


Except there's just one problem: you're wrong.

The first argument was: "It's not P2W because you don't actually buy the items themselves." This was debunked by explaining how you are - you're just using a middleman. Adding layers of complexity to the transaction does not change the fact that it's P2W.

Now the argument is: "It's not P2W because you can only buy items available to everyone else in the game." But... that's exactly what P2W is. Buying items in the game with real life money. Whether those items are available to other players or not has no bearing on what P2W is; this is just another "made up definition". And actually in most games that offer P2W options ("item shops") you'll notice that the items in the shop are the very same items that can be gained via gameplay by everyone else. P2W offers a shortcut; instead of working for what you have in the game, you just pay for it. Hence, "pay to win".

Here's a good way to determine if something is pay to win. Ask yourself "By spending this (real life) money on the game, will I gain an advantage over a player who didn't spend (real life) money on the game in this manner?" If the answer is "yes", then you've payed to win.

It's cute how people who don't know anything about the gaming industry think they have the authority to come into a discussion and make definitions up about it, though. So yeah, keep talking out your ass.

:)
Steel Wraith
#29 - 2012-04-04 20:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Steel Wraith
I submit to you the following:

Pay to Win:
- Handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold/isk/whatever.

Pay for Plex:
- Some guy grinds missions/incrusions/whatever for isk.
- You hand the developers $$ and receive plex.
- Some guy passes grinded isk to you and receives plex.
- Some guy spends plex for another month of play, thus keeping his own $$ in his pocket.

Net ISK gains: None. Or a small -isk to tax.
Net $$ gains: None.

Where is the Pay to Win? It's not. It's still play to win, it's just that some other player is doing the playing.

All it does is shift who pays the subscription, and encourage people to open more accounts.

Edit: Also lolMonocles
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#30 - 2012-04-04 20:51:29 UTC
i.e. We're outsourcing

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#31 - 2012-04-04 20:52:24 UTC
Steel Wraith wrote:
I submit to you the following:

Pay to Win:
- Handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold/isk/whatever.

Pay for Plex:
- Some guy grinds missions/incrusions/whatever for isk.
- You hand the developers $$ and receive plex.
- Some guy passes grinded isk to you and receives plex.
- Some guy spends plex for another month of play, thus keeping his own $$ in his pocket.

Net ISK gains: None. Or a small -isk to tax.
Net $$ gains: None.

Where is the Pay to Win? It's still play to win, it's just that some other player is doing the playing.

All it does is shift who pays the subscription, and encourage people to open more accounts.



This is just the "masking P2W with layers of complexity" argument. You're still handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold and ISK despite the cute little middleman they added.

Also: Pay to win does not preclude play to win. You can still outplay a person who bought their shiny gear with $$. This is an example of "taking the terminology too literally".
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#32 - 2012-04-04 20:58:12 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Steel Wraith wrote:
I submit to you the following:

Pay to Win:
- Handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold/isk/whatever.

Pay for Plex:
- Some guy grinds missions/incrusions/whatever for isk.
- You hand the developers $$ and receive plex.
- Some guy passes grinded isk to you and receives plex.
- Some guy spends plex for another month of play, thus keeping his own $$ in his pocket.

Net ISK gains: None. Or a small -isk to tax.
Net $$ gains: None.

Where is the Pay to Win? It's still play to win, it's just that some other player is doing the playing.

All it does is shift who pays the subscription, and encourage people to open more accounts.



This is just the "masking P2W with layers of complexity" argument. You're still handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold and ISK despite the cute little middleman they added.

Also: Pay to win does not preclude play to win. You can still outplay a person who bought their shiny gear with $$. This is an example of "taking the terminology too literally".



The 'gold' is not spawned, that is the part that you are confusing. You purchase some game time and decide to sell it. The isk may come from a miner. The miner sells some minerals to an industrialist. The isk comes from the indy. The indy makes a product and sell it on the market to the mission runner. The isk comes from the mission runner. The Mission Runner runs his missions. The isk comes from the agent.
Even if you remove the first part the isk is still in the game as it always was.

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **
Steel Wraith
#33 - 2012-04-04 21:01:19 UTC
Then we have different definitions of Pay to Win.

In my mind, Pay to Win is a design model that seeks to encourage massive amounts of microtransactions by spawning items in exclusive stores for players too stupid to realize the game they are playing is wallets online.

In your version it seems Pay to Win is any single player receiving a reward for spending cash no matter where the reward comes from? Am I way off?

Whether more isk really means in-game advantage or not is debatable, I don't want to get into that. Maybe it's unfair to players not willing to pay for others' subscriptions in order to avoid the grind, but I don't see it as having a negative impact on game design. Game-crushing Pay to Win with microt-ransactions and exclusive cash stores is the real evil, and we don't have that here.
Prince Kobol
#34 - 2012-04-04 21:02:12 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.
Yeah, no. That's not P2W for the simple reason that you're not buying any "win" — you're trading the exact same things that everyone else already have. That's, at best, RMT or just plain old MT (but not really, since you're not converting money to items).

So yes, it's pretty stupid when people make up their own ad-hoc definitions of things.


Except there's just one problem: you're wrong.

The first argument was: "It's not P2W because you don't actually buy the items themselves." This was debunked by explaining how you are - you're just using a middleman. Adding layers of complexity to the transaction does not change the fact that it's P2W.

Now the argument is: "It's not P2W because you can only buy items available to everyone else in the game." But... that's exactly what P2W is. Buying items in the game with real life money. Whether those items are available to other players or not has no bearing on what P2W is; this is just another "made up definition". And actually in most games that offer P2W options ("item shops") you'll notice that the items in the shop are the very same items that can be gained via gameplay by everyone else. P2W offers a shortcut; instead of working for what you have in the game, you just pay for it. Hence, "pay to win".

Here's a good way to determine if something is pay to win. Ask yourself "By spending this (real life) money on the game, will I gain an advantage over a player who didn't spend (real life) money on the game in this manner?" If the answer is "yes", then you've payed to win.

It's cute how people who don't know anything about the gaming industry think they have the authority to come into a discussion and make definitions up about it, though. So yeah, keep talking out your ass.

:)


All I can say is that you have never played a true P2W game because if you had you would realise how incrediblely wrong you are.
Graic Gabtar
The Lemon Party
#35 - 2012-04-04 21:02:16 UTC
OP, it's all OK mate.

It balances out because minerals are FREE!
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-04-04 21:02:31 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:


This is just the "masking P2W with layers of complexity" argument. You're still handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold and ISK despite the cute little middleman they added.

Also: Pay to win does not preclude play to win. You can still outplay a person who bought their shiny gear with $$. This is an example of "taking the terminology too literally".


I dare you to try this. I could use another guy who plans to "outplay me" while I get a 1.2 B tengu kill that drops 600m worth of loot. Not only are you paying to lose but you are paying me to win. Thanks.
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#37 - 2012-04-04 21:09:22 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.
Yeah, no. That's not P2W for the simple reason that you're not buying any "win" — you're trading the exact same things that everyone else already have. That's, at best, RMT or just plain old MT (but not really, since you're not converting money to items).

So yes, it's pretty stupid when people make up their own ad-hoc definitions of things.


Except there's just one problem: you're wrong.

The first argument was: "It's not P2W because you don't actually buy the items themselves." This was debunked by explaining how you are - you're just using a middleman. Adding layers of complexity to the transaction does not change the fact that it's P2W.

Now the argument is: "It's not P2W because you can only buy items available to everyone else in the game." But... that's exactly what P2W is. Buying items in the game with real life money. Whether those items are available to other players or not has no bearing on what P2W is; this is just another "made up definition". And actually in most games that offer P2W options ("item shops") you'll notice that the items in the shop are the very same items that can be gained via gameplay by everyone else. P2W offers a shortcut; instead of working for what you have in the game, you just pay for it. Hence, "pay to win".

Here's a good way to determine if something is pay to win. Ask yourself "By spending this (real life) money on the game, will I gain an advantage over a player who didn't spend (real life) money on the game in this manner?" If the answer is "yes", then you've payed to win.

It's cute how people who don't know anything about the gaming industry think they have the authority to come into a discussion and make definitions up about it, though. So yeah, keep talking out your ass.

:)


All I can say is that you have never played a true P2W game because if you had you would realise how incrediblely wrong you are.


All I can say is that you have never played a true P2W game because if you had you would realize how incredibly correct I am.

(See, I can do that too.)
Virgil Travis
Non Constructive Self Management
#38 - 2012-04-04 21:11:05 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Even worse than ignorance is when people make up convoluted, ad-hoc definitions of things to fit their arguments.

Whether you by the item directly from CCP or indirectly via the middleman of a PLEX, it is still paying real money for an in-game advantage. Therefore, it is P2W.
Yeah, no. That's not P2W for the simple reason that you're not buying any "win" — you're trading the exact same things that everyone else already have. That's, at best, RMT or just plain old MT (but not really, since you're not converting money to items).

So yes, it's pretty stupid when people make up their own ad-hoc definitions of things.


Except there's just one problem: you're wrong.

The first argument was: "It's not P2W because you don't actually buy the items themselves." This was debunked by explaining how you are - you're just using a middleman. Adding layers of complexity to the transaction does not change the fact that it's P2W.

Now the argument is: "It's not P2W because you can only buy items available to everyone else in the game." But... that's exactly what P2W is. Buying items in the game with real life money. Whether those items are available to other players or not has no bearing on what P2W is; this is just another "made up definition". And actually in most games that offer P2W options ("item shops") you'll notice that the items in the shop are the very same items that can be gained via gameplay by everyone else. P2W offers a shortcut; instead of working for what you have in the game, you just pay for it. Hence, "pay to win".

Here's a good way to determine if something is pay to win. Ask yourself "By spending this (real life) money on the game, will I gain an advantage over a player who didn't spend (real life) money on the game in this manner?" If the answer is "yes", then you've payed to win.

It's cute how people who don't know anything about the gaming industry think they have the authority to come into a discussion and make definitions up about it, though. So yeah, keep talking out your ass.

:)


Please be quiet when the adults are talking.

Unified Church of the Unobligated - madness in the method Mamma didn't raise no victims.
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-04-04 21:11:48 UTC
Vaal Erit wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:


This is just the "masking P2W with layers of complexity" argument. You're still handing the developers $$ and receiving spawned gold and ISK despite the cute little middleman they added.

Also: Pay to win does not preclude play to win. You can still outplay a person who bought their shiny gear with $$. This is an example of "taking the terminology too literally".


I dare you to try this. I could use another guy who plans to "outplay me" while I get a 1.2 B tengu kill that drops 600m worth of loot. Not only are you paying to lose but you are paying me to win. Thanks.


Roll

You're missing the point entirely but cool let's play "make stuff up" only let's spin it another way:

One character has been playing for years. He is flying a Rifter. Another character has only been playing for a couple of months, and he purchased his Hurricane through PLEX transactions. The two meet up in a lonely asteroid field...

See, I can make up stuff to support my argument, too.
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
#40 - 2012-04-04 21:13:08 UTC
Just out of curiosity, other than a physical show of hands, how can you tell if someone out there is using Plex to play? Is it their faction fit ship? Is it a fully stocked station?

Out of Pod is getting In the Pod - Join in game channel **IG OOPE **