EVE General Discussion

I see how I asked a question and you didn't answer it, but rather asked a question about a different game. Your question didn't answer mine.

…except that you can have numbers without paying for it and except that this makes P2W a useless concept since it no longer allows for any differentiation between games where paying money provides any actual advantages and those that don't.

…which may or may not generate a “win” (in combat, ”may not” is actually more likely), and that it's the numbers that generate the win, not the payment part.

…which will either make them rather ineffectual and not add much, or they're not actually providing numbers of the kind that win fights.

Yes, in a 3v1, the side with three people on it will generally win. That's because you have better numbers, not because you get some special advantage because you've paid. Same holds true for your small-gang scenarios.

“Buffing alts are forbidden in a free iteration of an mmo that allowed them when it was still subscription based.”
So? How is that relevant to this game?

No. They're paying another persons subscription fee in exchange for isk. They're not paying for in game advantages that aren't available to any other player who doesn't buy PLEX.

You are a sad person, and a hypocrite: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1642621#post1642621
Buffing alts being forbidden in a free iteration of an mmo that allowed them when it was still subscription based hints at the fact that those alts were okay when they brought revenue, but became unfair on a free version of it, therefore their interdiction.

Boosting and remote repping alts are of this kind.




And those better numbers can be made of alts controlled by one or a few players, versus the same number of RL players, who are then at a disadvantage because they didn't buy, supported and ran alts on several computers.


Numbers win fight, and when those numbers are made of RL players each of them controlling the same numbers of characters, it's level playfield.

When those numbers are heavily made of alts on one side, it's a form of P2W. But do argue more.

You know you've won the argument when they resort to this.

And as mentioned above: repeating something doesn't suddenly turn it into an argument. You actually have to provide some statements and reasoning to approach that. Your question does not answer mine, no matter how often you quote it.

It could also hint at the preferences of the donors. It cold hint at preferences with the devs. It could hint at them wanting to reduce overhead (bandwidth, storage space etc). It also provides very little in the way of hints about EVE since “fairness” isn't a universal property… hell, in EVE, it's arguably not even a desired property. It certainly doesn't provide any hints about what qualifies as P2W in EVE.

“Can”. Not “must”. Thus no P2W: because you can get the same advantage without paying for it. If your payment doesn't provide you with any advantage over those who don't pay, it's not really P2W, now is it?

- Because it's not a GM judgment, but a hard rule on a whole server?
- Didn't you buy those 5 accounts with RL money?

(Just out of morbid curiosity...)

Tippa, in my post (#188), if you were someone who daily fought solo, would my 'Scenario Three' leave a bad taste in your mouth? Or even your counter-scenario?

Your scenario isn't about paying to win (since the other guy can have the exact same neutral boosters) but rather one of whether hidden variables make things "unfair."

You can chose to see it either way, it's not really part of this discussion though (since you don't need to pay to do it).

Gas thread naow, pls, kthxbai xoxoxoxox

Let me break this down for you, no not your old post, that would just be mean. I'll present an argument why one issue, that of boosting alts constitutes 'pay to win' in EVE. And for myself or anyone else to say EVE has 'pay to win' it only needs to be shown to be true in one case for that statement to be proven to be true. The degree to which EVE is 'pay to win' vs other games is another matter.

1) An account paid directly or via Plex is still paid for with real money by someone to CCP, it is not free.

2) A Boosting Alt gives a significant real advantage.

* It is not the equivalent of someone just having a friend in a boosting ship, since players will always be better off with additional players in actively piloted ships rather than wasted on a ship they can use passively on a second account.

* Further due to it's passive nature it's unlikely anyone would want to actively pilot that ship, because it's boring.

* The DAoC example someone else used is a good one. 'Buff bots' became prevalent in that game for exactly the same reason they are becoming so here in the form of Boosting alts. They give a significant advantage while remaining passive and largely outside of the reach of hostiles. The Buffing character is also maximized on abilities that would be unlikely on a support character that was actively played, because it would be boring as hell to play. Mythic, the games developers dragged their heels for years on addressing it, because they were getting paid twice as much by players that used buffbots. This led to a decline of players who would not use buffbots, and eventually they made new servers where buffs had a short range rather than there previously unlimited range. Once launched those servers became by far the most populated and the lamentations of many a buffbot user can probably still be heard today. (just a correction from previous posts on DAoC, this all occurred on official servers where subs were paid).

DAoC and EVE may not have a lot in common, but the buffbots/boosting alts is eerily similar, and it most certainly is a case of paying to win. You get a marked advantage over other players not paying for an extra account, and the developers get more money for it. ..at least until everyone not into paying for advantages in such a way bails on the game altogether.

3) Plex is being used here to fudge the issue. It doesn't matter how you cut it, someone is paying CCP real money for your advantage of a boosting alt on a second account, and advantage that can't be fully realized without using a second account.

* ...and I'll remind people here of my earlier point that a boosting ship that is actively played is one less other ship you could have had in your fleet. It is not the equivalent of using a second account.


MMORPG players (and I count everyone in this myself included) love to get advantages over their peers, and either delude themselves or others that it really was all about how great they are as gamers when they apply that advantage in some competitive scenario in game. We're all guilty of that little bit, but some are way more guilty than others, and those that use advantages like Boosting alts are often chiefly among them. Many are loathe to give up the advantage, and even less willing to admit it's an advantage in the first place.

Game developers are about making money, yeah some love their games for it's own sake, but they still need to make money. CCP has long encouraged multiple accounts, and this in some cases is a form of 'pay to win'. I think long term it's detrimental to the game's health, others may disagree. Either way it's still 'pay to win' in cases like boosting alts. So lets just call a spade a spade shall we?