These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Pay to win

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#161 - 2012-07-16 22:18:18 UTC
EVE is not a pay to win game.

That term, it doesn't mean what you ineffectual little whiners want it to mean.

Troll thread, lacks content, mods please lock.

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#162 - 2012-07-16 22:19:29 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
So the win was from the scouts — an advantage that can be had without having to pay for it.
The “win” was not caused by any kind of “pay” — no P2W.


Those scouts are scout alts, and allow the player to run a combat ship also.

But the scout alts might be free to fund, support and run on free computers, I forgot.

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
I haven't
Ah. So your rhetoric questions weren't actually rhetoric — just ignorant.
Well, I have provided you with a link. You can try that one if you want the answers. In the meantime, you can explain how it is in any way relevant to EVE. Your new question is just a new question; it doesn't explain anything.


Why do you snip the part where I answer, and ask the same question again? Let me put it back

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
I haven't, and you haven't either. The relevance is, why does a free iteration of a twitch-based mmo expressively forbids non-micro requiring buffing alts?
Ah. So your rhetoric questions weren't actually rhetoric — just ignorant.
Well, I have provided you with a link. You can try that one if you want the answers. In the meantime, you can explain how it is in any way relevant to EVE. Your new question is just a new question; it doesn't explain anything.


Keywords being: "free", "twitch", "non-micro requiring buffing alt", in the context of our P2W discussion
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#163 - 2012-07-16 22:19:34 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:

And since Pay to Win refers to paying RL money (at least in this universe), the PLEX that a person uses to sub (if bought on market) is free.


Erm. Nobody said that the guy who buys PLEX from the market with ISK is winning. Infact it's more likely that he's a loser. You can bet that 90% of the people who buy PLEX from the market are unemployed. Nobody with a minimum of self esteem spends as much time as it takes to grind those 500m when he could make the same kind of cash in an hour of not-even-well-paid work.

The guy who puts them on the market, now that is quite a stallion. He's the guy who pays to win. Look beyond your own nose. Bear (I didn't know which smiley to use and this one is a bear, so..)

Since ISK does not mean a win, how does this further your argument?

Also, please provide evidence of your statistic.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#164 - 2012-07-16 22:22:05 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Corina Jarr wrote:

Since ISK does not mean a win, how does this further your argument?

Also, please provide evidence of your statistic.


Oh how unexpected. Yawn.

PS: I don't see any statistic in my posting btw. Just estimations.

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#165 - 2012-07-16 22:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
How is that contrived?
It's contrived because you're trying to make it seem like the only reason it happened the way it did was because people used alts that they had paid for (thereby creating the supposed P2W), when in fact the exact same thing would have happened without the alts.

Since the supposed P2W bit was entirely irrelevant to the outcome, the payments didn't generate any kind of “win”.
A P2W where paying doesn't create any kind of win isn't much of a P2W now is it?

Quote:
Those scouts are scout alts
…and their being alts makes no difference. The “win” did not happen because someone paid. There was no P2W.

Quote:
Why do you snip the part where I answer, and ask the same question again?
Because you didn't answer — you just asked an unrelated question.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#166 - 2012-07-16 22:23:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
It came from the alts.
Nope. It came from the scouts.
Whether or not those scouts were alts makes no difference. No advantage was provided just because someone paid.

No “win” was caused by any kind of “pay” — the “pay” in your scenario was not required “2 win”. Thus: no P2W.


The scout alts were required to win. The scout alts were required.

The scout alts which were free to fund, support and run on free computers.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
But I thought you were an authority on P2W
Nice strawman/ad hominem combo. Are you going to say what relevance it has for EVE or are you just going to keep piling up the fallacies?


I have copied and pasted it several times already.

Red herring, strawman, fallacies, we're entering Wikipedia Rhetoric 101
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#167 - 2012-07-16 22:25:46 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
How is that contrived?
It's contrived because you're trying to make it seem like the only reason it happened the way it did was because people used alts that they had paid for (thereby creating the supposed P2W), when in fact the exact same thing would have happened without the alts.

Since the supposed P2W bit was entirely irrelevant to the outcome, the payments didn't generate any kind of “win”.
A P2W where paying doesn't create any kind of win isn't much of a P2W now is it?



"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"


You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#168 - 2012-07-16 22:26:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The scout alts were required to win. The scout alts were required.
No. The scouts were required; their being alts was not. No advantage was provided just because someone paid.

Quote:
I have copied and pasted it several times already.
No. You've only asked unrelated questions.

Quote:
You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?
As long as you had the scouts, yes.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#169 - 2012-07-16 22:30:03 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:

Since ISK does not mean a win, how does this further your argument?

Also, please provide evidence of your statistic.


Oh how unexpected. Yawn.

PS: I don't see any statistic in my posting btw. Just estimations.
PPS: What did I expect? You probably think just because you live at your parents' means your life doesnt cost money, right?

90% of people: this is a statistic.
And an estimate without evidence to back it up is worthless.

I also do my own shopping, when I can, and know exactly how much I would spend every month. Including rent and car related things.


Still, ISK does not provide any direct advantage.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#170 - 2012-07-16 22:31:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
How is that contrived?
It's contrived because you're trying to make it seem like the only reason it happened the way it did was because people used alts that they had paid for (thereby creating the supposed P2W), when in fact the exact same thing would have happened without the alts.

Since the supposed P2W bit was entirely irrelevant to the outcome, the payments didn't generate any kind of “win”.
A P2W where paying doesn't create any kind of win isn't much of a P2W now is it?



"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"


You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?

All other things being equal. Yes. The outcome would be that things could go either way.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#171 - 2012-07-16 22:32:08 UTC
meh

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#172 - 2012-07-16 22:33:30 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The scout alts were required to win. The scout alts were required.
No. The scouts were required; their being alts was not. No advantage was provided just because someone paid.


But for an equal amount of RL players, the players who have scout alts amongst other alts will win vs. the players who have none.

So the side with the more alts win. But those alts are apparently free.


Tippia wrote:
No. You've only asked unrelated questions.


Are you seriously pretending that in the context of P2W and alts' effect discussion, a free iteration of a twitch-based mmo that expressively forbids non-micro requiring buffing alts, is irrelevant?


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?
As long as you had the scouts, yes.


So that's 5 players out of the fight, because they have to scout. So they won't engage at half a force vs a full force of 10.

Or maybe... they could buy, support and run scout alts on free computers, engage, win (because of offgrid boosting/ongrid non-micro requiring alts), or gtfo if said alts report incoming enemies.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#173 - 2012-07-16 22:34:01 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
How is that contrived?
It's contrived because you're trying to make it seem like the only reason it happened the way it did was because people used alts that they had paid for (thereby creating the supposed P2W), when in fact the exact same thing would have happened without the alts.

Since the supposed P2W bit was entirely irrelevant to the outcome, the payments didn't generate any kind of “win”.
A P2W where paying doesn't create any kind of win isn't much of a P2W now is it?



"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"


You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?

All other things being equal. Yes. The outcome would be that things could go either way.


Lol is the only valid answer to your post.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#174 - 2012-07-16 22:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Corina Jarr wrote:

90% of people: this is a statistic.
And an estimate without evidence to back it up is worthless.


I said "You can bet that 90% of the people who buy PLEX from the market are unemployed." and this is not a statistic. This is an estimation. Or a bet. A rant. Anything. Just not a statistic.
I don't blame you for the American education system though. It's alright. -pat pat-

Anyway I'm sorry for picking you on for your age, kind of. I mean. I'm not very old either. So don't pick this up in a creepy way. It's just. Awwww. Smile

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#175 - 2012-07-16 22:44:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But for an equal amount of RL players, the players who have scout alts amongst other alts will win vs. the players who have none.
…which is a result of numbers, not of someone getting an advantage just because they pay money for it. It's also not nearly as guaranteed as you make it out to be. But for the sake of argument, the side with the scouts win, because of the scouts — not because they P2W:ed.

Oh, and the scenario wasn't one of equal amounts of RL players to begin with.

Quote:
Are you seriously pretending that in the context of P2W and alts' effect discussion, a free iteration of a twitch-based mmo that expressively forbids non-micro requiring buffing alts, is irrelevant?
I don't know. I keep asking you why it is, but you refuse to answer the question. So: how is some rule on private DAOC servers that you say you don't know anything about in any way relevant to EVE?

Quote:
So that's 5 players out of the fight, because they have to scout. So they won't engage at half a force vs a full force of 10.
No. That's 5 players out of the fight because they have to scout, so there's still 15 ships vs. 10 ships in the fight, which lets the side with (temporarily) higher numbers do more damage and then break off before the other side's reinforcements arrive.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#176 - 2012-07-16 22:46:39 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
How is that contrived?
It's contrived because you're trying to make it seem like the only reason it happened the way it did was because people used alts that they had paid for (thereby creating the supposed P2W), when in fact the exact same thing would have happened without the alts.

Since the supposed P2W bit was entirely irrelevant to the outcome, the payments didn't generate any kind of “win”.
A P2W where paying doesn't create any kind of win isn't much of a P2W now is it?



"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"


You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?

All other things being equal. Yes. The outcome would be that things could go either way.


Lol is the only valid answer to your post.

To be honest following your post was difficult to follow for a bit.

You say both teams have 10 players.
Then you say that B has 5 people with 3 alts each (so that would indicate that the other 5 have only 1 character).
So B has a total or 20 characters. 10 dps, 5 scouts (alts) and 5 boosters (alts). 5 of those dps ships are long range setups.
Team A is 10 dps ships.

Ways A could win:
snipers miss a lot (it can happen quite often), so the 10 close range kill the 5 close range of B before significant losses. Snipers either warp off or keep shooting and A warp off (and back in at zero to face **** them).

A survives long enough for scouts to detect fleet, snipers warp out, close range ships die.

A can win. Just depends on what happens when and who makes a mistake.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#177 - 2012-07-16 22:50:36 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:

90% of people: this is a statistic.
And an estimate without evidence to back it up is worthless.


I said "You can bet that 90% of the people who buy PLEX from the market are unemployed." and this is not a statistic. This is an estimation. Or a bet. A rant. Anything. Just not a statistic.
I don't blame you for the American education system though. It's alright. -pat pat-

Anyway I'm sorry for picking you on for your age, kind of. I mean. I'm not very old either. So don't pick this up in a creepy way. It's just. Awwww. Smile

Ok, so lets call it an estimate. It still is worthless without some evidence.

I can estimate the world is 5 feet wide, doesn't make it close to accurate.



Also, no worries. I've gotten worse than this forum could put out.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#178 - 2012-07-16 22:57:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD TYPE40
Tippia wrote:
…which is a result of numbers, not of someone getting an advantage just because they pay money for it. It's also not nearly as guaranteed as you make it out to be. But for the sake of argument, the side with the scouts win, because of the scouts — not because they P2W:ed.

Oh, and the scenario wasn't one of equal amounts of RL players to begin with.


Superior numbers are a result of paying for alts (they can be plexed, but they can be more effectively paid for).
Scouts are alts, which are paid for. Offgrid boosters or remote reppers are alts also, and ensure victory.

According to you, the following scenario isn't one of equal amounts of RL players to begin with (the reinforcement fleet being out of the equation for obvious reasons):
"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"

You've been blatantly lying outright a few times now, and you don't seem the sharpest tool in the box, so allow me a little Ad Hominem and ask you this:


*snip*


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Are you seriously pretending that in the context of P2W and alts' effect discussion, a free iteration of a twitch-based mmo that expressively forbids non-micro requiring buffing alts, is irrelevant?
I don't know. I keep asking you why it is, but you refuse to answer the question. So: how is some rule on private DAOC servers that you say you don't know anything about in any way relevant to EVE?


Because it addresses the impact non-micro requiring buffing alts have in a twitch-based game?

What could it say about the impact non-micro requiring buffing alts have in a non-twitch-based game?


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
So that's 5 players out of the fight, because they have to scout. So they won't engage at half a force vs a full force of 10.
No. That's 5 players out of the fight because they have to scout, so there's still 15 ships vs. 10 ships in the fight, which lets the side with (temporarily) higher numbers do more damage and then break off before the other side's reinforcements arrive.


The scenario is a few paragraphs above. It's 15 fighting ships + 5 scouts vs. 10, to begin with.
Equal number of RL players. If the side with scouts has no alts, that's 5 ships out of the fight (because they have to scout).

*snip*

Please refrain from using personal insults, thank you.

EDIT: Personal insults removed - ISD Type40
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#179 - 2012-07-16 23:03:25 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Corina Jarr wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:


"Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each, 5 of those alts are static scouts/offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Were those alts free to buy, fund, and run on free computers?"


You are saying that without the alts, the outcome would be the same?


To be honest following your post was difficult to follow for a bit.

You say both teams have 10 players.
Then you say that B has 5 people with 3 alts each (so that would indicate that the other 5 have only 1 character).
So B has a total or 20 characters. 10 dps, 5 scouts (alts) and 5 boosters (alts). 5 of those dps ships are long range setups.
Team A is 10 dps ships.

Ways A could win:
snipers miss a lot (it can happen quite often), so the 10 close range kill the 5 close range of B before significant losses. Snipers either warp off or keep shooting and A warp off (and back in at zero to face **** them).

A survives long enough for scouts to detect fleet, snipers warp out, close range ships die.

A can win. Just depends on what happens when and who makes a mistake.



This is not what I've written (10 fighting ships vs. 10 + 5 scouts/offgrid booster(s) and 5 snipers or little micro-requiring ships). But then again the Rock Eater could teleport and vomit veldspar at everyone.

It's a scifi game, anything could happen!
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#180 - 2012-07-16 23:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Ah... one sec so I can re eval.

Ok, you weren't explicit with the way the numbers worked, sorry.

So 15 combat, vs 10 combat.


Even more likely that B will mess up. Since the 5 players are managing close combat ships and snipers while some are also watching the scouts (boosters aren't in much need of constant attention), that's a lot of room for mistakes.

Of course, that assumes that the 10 folks would even risk engaging when they saw 15 enemies in local/dscan.