These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#181 - 2012-07-16 23:08:26 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Superior numbers are a result of paying for alts
…which can also be achieved without paying for alts. You can have the same amount of win without the “paying for” part.

Quote:
You've been blatantly lying outright a few times now
Such as… when, exactly?

Quote:
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?
These are just more questions about a completely different game. Why don't you provide an answer that is relevant to this game instead?

Quote:
The scenario is a few paragraphs above. It's 15 fighting ships + 5 scouts vs. 10, to begin with.
…which means that there is no need for scout alts — they could achieve the same thing with proper human scouts. It's still numbers that win the fight; it's still the scouts that let you get away from the reinforcements. At no point are any payments required to gain those two advantages. If you can have the same advantage without paying, it's not really P2W, now is it?
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#182 - 2012-07-16 23:08:59 UTC
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#183 - 2012-07-16 23:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
You can have the same amount of win without the “paying for” part.

But it can be achieved through paying for alts.
For 10 RL players vs. 10 RL players. at same skill level, the side with the most alts win.

Are those alts bought, supported for, and ran on free computers?



Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
You've been blatantly lying outright a few times now
Such as… when, exactly?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1642621#post1642621


Tippia wrote:
These are just more questions about a completely different game. Why don't you provide an answer that is relevant to this game instead?

A buff alt is an unfair advantage, and it has a large component of P2W in EvE
Buff alts being forbidden in a free mmo only strengthens that assertion.


Tippia wrote:
which means that there is no need for scout alts — they could achieve the same thing with proper human scouts. It's still numbers that win the fight; it's still the scouts that let you get away from the reinforcements. At no point are any payments required to gain those two advantages. If you can have the same advantage without paying, it's not really P2W, now is it?


Side with more number wins, because side can have scouts or offgrid booster or whatever plus the big number of fighting ships
More number easy to get with alts. Alts easy, no need have online friends. Little RL gang can have big online number.
Alts need bought, need funded, need ran on computers.

Alts P2W. Tippia understand?

Is Tippia homeschooled offspring of Crumplecorn and Malcanis?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#184 - 2012-07-16 23:26:08 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The scout alts were required to win. The scout alts were required.


Could the scout alts have been simply "scouts"? That is, could the role have been filled by another player?

If the advantage comes from having higher numbers, are Goonswarm and TEST Alliance "pay to win" because they have more friends than you? Is recruiting my friends into the game also, "pay to win"?

EpicFailTroll wrote:
I have copied and pasted it several times already.


If you cut and paste an argument, you are falling into the trap of "argument by repetition". Repeating your statements over and over again doesn't make your argument any more true: it just emphasises the fact that you have no argument.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#185 - 2012-07-16 23:31:42 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The scout alts were required to win. The scout alts were required.


Could the scout alts have been simply "scouts"? That is, could the role have been filled by another player?

If the advantage comes from having higher numbers, are Goonswarm and TEST Alliance "pay to win" because they have more friends than you? Is recruiting my friends into the game also, "pay to win"?


It's perfectly normal that the side with the more human players has an advantage.

It's not normal that the side with the most alts has one. Especially since it applies most to small-gang engagements or even 1vs1.


Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
I have copied and pasted it several times already.


If you cut and paste an argument, you are falling into the trap of "argument by repetition". Repeating your statements over and over again doesn't make your argument any more true: it just emphasises the fact that you have no argument.


It's what has to be done with Tippia. He just pretends you haven't answered, when you have, and asks the same question again. This is pretty sad.
snake pies
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society
#186 - 2012-07-16 23:31:43 UTC
CCP already has $$$ > GTC > ISK.

What other pay to win do you want? Buying ships and ammo ONLY available for $$$? That's what we don't want.

Otherwise, we already have $$$ > SHIPS with the PLEX, and that's just fine, because it doesn't make them any better pilots and we can still compete just fine. In fact, it just makes for sweeter killmails....
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#187 - 2012-07-16 23:31:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But it can be achieved through paying for alts.
It doesn't give you any win just because you pay for it.
Quote:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1642621#post1642621
That's one of your posts, so I suppose you're saying that you're lying in that one? What does that have to do with me?

Quote:
A buff alt is an unfair advantage, and it has a large component of P2W in EvE
Buff alts being forbidden in a free mmo only strengthens that assertion.
…except that the mechanics of that MMO will be different to EVE and that the benefits had from such an alt will differ, and the “fairness” of said alt will differ accordingly. In addition, in EVE, you can have the same advantage without paying for it. So it doesn't really say much about EVE at all, does it?

Quote:
Side with more number wins, because side can have scouts or offgrid booster or whatever plus the big number of fighting ships
Yes. Numbers win fights. We've established that already. That does not mean that it's P2W since you cannot equate “numbers” with “payment” unless you want to make the term utterly useless and only end up showing that every multiplayer game ever is P2W.

Quote:
Alts P2W.
…aside from the simple fact that you can have the same advantage without paying for it, which means that paying does not generate any special win. In fact, it rather generates loss if we're talking about alts in combat.

Oh, and you don't have to repeat anything for me: you just have to actually answer the question rather than post stuff with no apparent bearing on what's being asked. You did good now, but actually providing an argument rather than more unrelated nonsense. Of course, the arguments themselves weren't all that good, but at least it was an answer.
Plutonian
Intransigent
#188 - 2012-07-16 23:33:07 UTC
Scenario One: My Rifter (solo account) takes on two players, working together, each in Rifters, and I lose. This is not P2W. I took on two characters, both are reflected in the killmail.

Scenario Two: My Rifter (solo still) takes on a single player running two accounts, each flying Rifters. I lose. This is not P2W. I still took on two characters, and the actions of both are reflected in the killmail. (And, honestly... hats off to pilots who somehow manage two characters in a fight! I simply cannot multitask to that degree.)

Scenario Three: My Rifter takes on a single player running two accounts, one in a Rifter, the other in a boosting alt at a deep safe somewhere in system. I lose. This scenario equates to P2W. It seemed I was engaging only a single ship, but that ship, through the funding of a separate account, was buffered far in excess of what my ship's stats. No mention of this will appear in the killmail.


Now, in Scenario Three, if the killmail reflected the pilot was being boosted, I'd have no issue. I would be able to clearly see that he used an advantage (which is available to me also), and that I really didn't face a single pilot. I actually drew down on 1.5 pilots. But the lossmail system will not furnish me that information. I'm left to guess at my performance, while the other pilot keeps his dirty little secret (i.e., "solo" versus "true solo").

It's that the information is hidden that makes it look like CCP would enjoy running a crooked game.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#189 - 2012-07-16 23:36:18 UTC
Plutonian wrote:
Scenario Three: My Rifter takes on a single player running two accounts, one in a Rifter, the other in a boosting alt at a deep safe somewhere in system. I lose. This scenario equates to P2W. It seemed I was engaging only a single ship, but that ship, through the funding of a separate account, was buffered far in excess of what my ship's stats. No mention of this will appear in the killmail.
…and if that second account was actually a second player, would it still be P2W?
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#190 - 2012-07-16 23:39:53 UTC
Plutonian wrote:
It's that the information is hidden that makes it look like CCP would enjoy running a crooked game.


You haven't been playing very long have you? EVE isn't supposed to be fair, so get over it.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#191 - 2012-07-16 23:44:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:

Oh, and you don't have to repeat anything for me: you just have to actually answer the question rather than post stuff with no apparent bearing on what's being asked. You did good now, but actually providing an argument rather than more unrelated nonsense. Of course, the arguments themselves weren't all that good, but at least it was an answer.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1642621#post1642621

See how I had already answered the question, and you pretended I didn't?

Are you the homeschooled offspring of Crumplecorn and Malcanis?


- Numbers is payment, since you pay to buy and fund accounts (more often than not, easier than plexing).
- The more players with alts, the more numbers on that side (obviously, but you don't seem to get it)
- Alts that require very little to no micro make up those numbers, and offer very significant advantage
- You can win every 1v1 engagement if you use a few alts (scout, offgrid boosting, remote rep)
- Lots of small-gang scenarios end up in win for the side with the more alts
- Buffing alts are forbidden in a free iteration of an mmo that allowed them when it was still subscription based.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#192 - 2012-07-16 23:45:35 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
The last straw: Changing the definition of P2W to something ridiculous. Shocked


Could you enlighten the entire MMO community, oh wise Smegma, with your correct definition of "Pay To Win"?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#193 - 2012-07-16 23:46:52 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
- Numbers is payment, since you pay to buy and fund accounts (more often than not, easier than plexing).
- The more players with alts, the more numbers on that side (obviously, but you don't seem to get it)


The more players you have on one side, the more players you have on one side.

So what you're saying is that having friends is Pay-To-Win.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#194 - 2012-07-16 23:49:16 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
- Numbers is payment, since you pay to buy and fund accounts (more often than not, easier than plexing).
- The more players with alts, the more numbers on that side (obviously, but you don't seem to get it)


The more players you have on one side, the more players you have on one side.

So what you're saying is that having friends is Pay-To-Win.



I'm saying that ALTS are P2W, because you don't have to micro them to get very significant advantage.

Seriously, do you people even read posts?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#195 - 2012-07-16 23:49:36 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
It's what has to be done with Tippia. He just pretends you haven't answered, when you have, and asks the same question again. This is pretty sad.


What you need to do is only ask one question. Tippia will only answer the fragment of your post that Tippia is interested in answering. Arguing with Tippia is like trying to empty the ocean with a bucket.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#196 - 2012-07-16 23:50:26 UTC
What "Epicfailtroll" and "DrSmegma" might fail to realise is that you can get all the benefits of alts without paying for them. The fact you "can" pay for them does not mean it is pay to win.

As mentioned 8 pages ago, you are only paying to avoid grinding. Paying doesn't mean winning.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Khergit Deserters
Crom's Angels
#197 - 2012-07-16 23:50:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Khergit Deserters
Well, the whole idea of an even playing field was gone when the game first went meta. By that I mean, recruiting from forums outside the game to form super alliances with 1000s of members. Little groups of players recruiting from inside the game could never develop enough fame and momentum to compete with that.
So once paradise is lost, you might as well concede defeat and be able to buy in-game power (isk) with RL cash. It can never purely be an in-game battle of wits again. You have the meta factor, so might as well play it to the hilt.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-07-16 23:50:45 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Oh, and you don't have to repeat anything for me: you just have to actually answer the question rather than post stuff with no apparent bearing on what's being asked. You did good now, but actually providing an argument rather than more unrelated nonsense. Of course, the arguments themselves weren't all that good, but at least it was an answer.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1642621#post1642621

See how I had already answered the question, and you pretended I didn't?

Are you the homeschooled offspring of Crumplecorn and Malcanis?


- Numbers is payment, since you pay to buy and fund accounts (more often than not, easier than plexing).
- The more players with alts, the more numbers on that side (obviously, but you don't seem to get it)
- Alts that require very little to no micro make up those numbers, and offer very significant advantage
- You can win every 1v1 engagement if you use a few alts (scout, offgrid boosting, remote rep)
- Lots of small-gang scenarios end up in win for the side with the more alts
- Buffing alts are forbidden in a free iteration of an mmo that allowed them when it was still subscription based.



It's still not pay to win. It's paying for another active subscription. What the person does with that extra subscription is completely up to them.

Pay to win by definition is paying real money to gain an advantage over other players that can not otherwise be achieved by in game means. Everyone is able to pay for more subscriptions using in game means.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#199 - 2012-07-16 23:51:56 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
I'm saying that ALTS are P2W, because you don't have to micro them to get very significant advantage.


All you're saying is that people who have more than one account are "winning" by your definition of "winning", and that since they paid for those accounts, they're "paying to win".

What everyone else is saying is that they think "Pay To Win" implies something else, usually something about game design and item stores and power items.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Plutonian
Intransigent
#200 - 2012-07-16 23:52:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Plutonian wrote:
Scenario Three: My Rifter takes on a single player running two accounts, one in a Rifter, the other in a boosting alt at a deep safe somewhere in system. I lose. This scenario equates to P2W. It seemed I was engaging only a single ship, but that ship, through the funding of a separate account, was buffered far in excess of what my ship's stats. No mention of this will appear in the killmail.
…and if that second account was actually a second player, would it still be P2W?


No. If the booster alt was a player, the scenario does not equate to P2W. However, I still don't like that something which has a massive effect on the combat (such as a booster alt in a 1vs1 fight) is not in the killmail.