These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#281 - 2012-07-17 16:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Spending less time, or none at all, is having a clear advantage
What advantage is that? What do I win? How does me spending less time make my enemies explode? Oh, and you're still ignoring the fact that the time is still spent, so it's still no “win” (could it even be counted as one, which is highly doubtful) that can't be had through other means… in fact it has to be had through other means before I can get my hands on it.

Quote:
But for an equal number of RL players on each side, the side with the most alts has the advantage
…but it's still no advantage that can't be had without paying for it. Thus no P2W. Disallowing one side to having that advantage just for the sake of argument doesn't mean that it's impossible for them to have it. Since they can have it, and since it can be had without the use of payment, it's not P2W.

It's just the “can” ≠ “must” argument all over again.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#282 - 2012-07-17 16:38:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Spending less time, or none at all, is having a clear advantage
What advantage is that? What do I win? How does me spending less time make my enemies explode? Oh, and you're still ignoring the fact that the time is still spent, so it's still no “win” (could it even be counted as one, which is highly doubtful) that can't be had through other means… in fact it has to be had through other means before I can get my hands on it.


The advantage of not having to spend time, as in not spending time, which does spend time. Which is an advantage, and is quite win as anybody will agree.
Spend RL money, fund alts instantaneously, do not spend time grinding isk for them = advantage


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
But for an equal number of RL players on each side, the side with the most alts has the advantage
…but it's still no advantage that can't be had without paying for it. Thus no P2W. Disallowing one side to having that advantage just for the sake of argument doesn't mean that it's impossible for them to have it. Since they can have it, and since it can be had without the use of payment, it's not P2W.

It's just the “can” ≠ “must” argument all over again.


For an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, the side with the most alts had an advantage, i.e. the side which had been able to buy and fund alts through RL money, since timecodes and PLEX didn't exist at the time.

We were talking about the state of EvE before timecodes and PLEX remember? Was it P2W then?


Also, in Derkastan, you can get a high post in the government, either through giving money to the president (corruption), or working your way up: what is the state of the regime? Is it corrupt? Is it not corrupt?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#283 - 2012-07-17 16:44:05 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The advantage of not having to spend time, as in not spending time, which does spend time.
Begging the question.

What's the advantage? What do I win?

Quote:
For an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, the side with the most alts had an advantage
…but no matter how many times you repeat that, it's still not an advantage that can't be had without paying for it. Thus, no P2W. It wasn't P2W even before GTCs, because the same advantage could still be had without paying for it, so it never was P2W to begin with.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#284 - 2012-07-17 16:54:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The advantage of not having to spend time, as in not spending time, which does spend time.
Begging the question.

What's the advantage? What do I win?


The advantage is more time to do stuff instead of grinding
You win the opportunity of doing stuff instead of grinding, do whatever suits your fancy, and if you're a PvPer, invest that time you didn't have to spend in grinding, to test fits out and train and increase your chances to win.

So yes it's pretty much "win". Facts are stubborn things.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
For an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, the side with the most alts had an advantage
…but no matter how many times you repeat that, it's still not an advantage that can't be had without paying for it. Thus, no P2W. It wasn't P2W even before GTCs, because the same advantage could still be had without paying for it, so it never was P2W to begin with.


But you're wrong, because for an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, the side that did not invest RL money into alts, could not fund them through isk, and could not get superior numbers any other means (reread "equal number of equally skilled players on both sides", I've written it down a dozen times now)

Was it then P2W?

Also, in Derkastan, you can get a high post in the government, either through giving money to the president (corruption), or working your way up: what is the state of the regime? Is it corrupt? Is it not corrupt?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#285 - 2012-07-17 17:01:56 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
You win the opportunity of doing stuff instead of grinding

I'm not sure how you can state that having the opportunity to not play the game is winning the game.

Can you demonstrate how this relates to an in-game advantage?

"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,

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#286 - 2012-07-17 17:08:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The advantage is more time to do stuff instead of grinding
You win the opportunity of doing stuff instead of grinding
So you're arguing opportunity cost? Well, as luck would have it, EVE has plenty of activities that can be done in the background, so you can have that advantage without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.


Quote:
But you're wrong, because for an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides
…the advantage is still numbers — an advantage that is separate to payment. Thus, no P2W. Just because you deny one side the advantage doesn't mean they can gain it without the use of alts and thus without the use of your (supposed) P2W mechanism.

You are right back at the argument where you claimed a strict equivalence between numbers and payment, which means the term loses all meaning since every multiplayer game ever is now P2W and we can no longer use it to distinguish between game where payment actually gives you some kind of “win” (e.g. games with gold ammo) and those that don't (e.g. EVE).

You still haven't provided an example of something you can't have unless you pay for it and which gives you an advantage that can't be had without this payment.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#287 - 2012-07-17 17:08:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
You know, I will break this into super-easy to decode mode for you, with the vague hope you can see the difference.

~~World of tanks~~

Gold ammo: Only available from $ - is better than anything you can acquire grinding.
Silver ammo: Available by grinding.

Now, in WoT you can also convert money into in-game credits, then in-game credits into silver ammo.

So, which is pay to win? Paying to acquire something that is unavailable without paying and increases the chance of you winning, or paying to acquire the same item that everyone else uses? How can you define paying to be the same as everyone else, as paying to win? You avoid "grinding" (playing the game) but you acquire nothing that aids your ability to play the game; the ability to win is not tied to what you are using, merely how it was acquired.

There is no gold ammo in EvE, there is nothing you are able to acquire which one cannot acquire from simply playing the game.

This is commonly referred to as a "convenience purchase" or "pay for convenience" and is present in many games. It is clearly distinguishable from games where you can "pay to win" -- which means the expected outcome of paying money is a greater chance of victory.

"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,

EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#288 - 2012-07-17 17:17:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The advantage is more time to do stuff instead of grinding
You win the opportunity of doing stuff instead of grinding
So you're arguing opportunity cost? Well, as luck would have it, EVE has plenty of activities that can be done in the background, so you can have that advantage without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.


Well, as luck would have it, time spent doing stuff other than grinding in game, however low-maintenance this grinding is, is time that can be spent training, testing stuff, i.e. increasing your chances to win.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
But you're wrong, because for an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides
…the advantage is still numbers — an advantage that is separate to payment. Thus, no P2W. Just because you deny one side the advantage doesn't mean they can gain it without the use of alts and thus without the use of your (supposed) P2W mechanism.

You are right back at the argument where you claimed a strict equivalence between numbers and payment, which means the term loses all meaning since every multiplayer game ever is now P2W and we can no longer use it to distinguish between game where payment actually gives you some kind of “win” (e.g. games with gold ammo) and those that don't (e.g. EVE).


How, when alts could only be funded through RL money, and in the case of a equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, could the alt-less side get more numbers? Friends? The scenario is an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, can you even compute that?

And not every multiplayer game is P2W in their alt management even though they all allow them, let me go back ten pages earlier:
"In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 once for each client and you're done."
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#289 - 2012-07-17 17:19:49 UTC
Fidelium Mortis wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
EvE is one of the most P2W mmos out there, through the use of alts. In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 Fx once and you're done.

Online alts really must be flagged ingame as belonging to the same player/IP. For now, they can be used to escape consequences and be cheesy as hell.

What would you prefer to face, assuming you control only one character:

- Some dude with an offgrid boosting alt, a remote repping alt, a falcon alt?
- Some altless dude who spent PLEX on officer/faction gear?

There's one scenario where you can get the upper hand -or get away-, through superior piloting skills, can you guess which it is?



I think "win" is the operative word here. Just having the ships, modules and even skill points doesn't mean jack unless you have a sound grip on the gameplay / game mechanics.

The real win is figuring out how to relieve the poor bastard of the assets he / she poured into the game with the expectation of having an advantage. Think of it as a means of redistributing wealth.


The same could be said of gold ammo, if you don't know how to point your tank and aim a shot then the gold ammo won't help you. Saying that being able to pay for a character with the skillpoints to handle an OP ship you buy all with plex bought with RL money isn't pay to win because they "might not" have the knowledge of how to use them is just wrong. You can say its not anything you couldn't earn in game and I'd agree with you but it does take away the time you have to spend otherwise to earn it.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#290 - 2012-07-17 17:25:27 UTC
I think I'm going to sue golden ammo sellers because if it's "pay to win" I shouldn't get *head shot* and always win -herp

Then when I play Eve and use several accounts or buy toons a couldn't afford to spend time training them, this doesn't mean I have a clear advantage versus someone that can't afford to -derp

In both cases you don't buy the factor win, you just increase your chances of wining by using real money, difference being one you can only get it with real money and the other everyone can get it, but you have to spend a couple years of raining for it or months of farming stuff.

So here we are playing with words to prove each other point and forgetting (because it might serve purposes from one or another) the essential point: using money to get an advantage over someone
Be it golden ammo it's never said you will win, you just have better chances to win, or be it buying super toons/mods/ships doesn't ensure you neither of wining but you have better chances.

So in the end of all this mess I still think both the guy buying several accounts/mods/ships/whatever the heck, or the guy buying golden ammo are just two idiots that can't find something more important in their life to put that money in and like spend time arguing useless stuff.

Major difference in between me and some refusing and arguing yadaya, is that I know I'm an idiot, what makes me sad is some thinking they're smarter playing with words while they're just as idiots as I can be, and believe me I don't put much effort doing it do I? Lol

brb
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#291 - 2012-07-17 17:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, as luck would have it, time spent doing stuff other than grinding in game, however low-maintenance this grinding is, is time that can be spent training, testing stuff, i.e. increasing your chances to win.
Good thing that it doesn't require any grinding then, and bad luck that “increasing your chances“ isn't the same thing as a win. Good thing, too, that the same amount of win can be had without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.

In fact, what you're talking about — training — is pretty much the opposite: it's play to win.

Quote:
How, when alts could only be funded through RL money, and in the case of a equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, could the alt-less side get more numbers? Friends?
Friends would be one way. More skills, better equipment would be another. All of it can be had without paying, and no matter how much you try to restrict one side from having the advantages in a single scenario, the simple fact remains: the same advantages can be had without payment, thus no P2W.

Quote:
And not every multiplayer game is P2W
They are if you strictly equate numbers with payment the way you have to do if you want to argue that it's the payment that creates the win. With this equivalence, Quake TDM is P2W because the team that has more players paid the most will have an advantage over the team that paid less. Of course, this view of P2W is patently absurd as is the notion that payment ≡ numbers. Therefore we decouple the two. Numbers is what wins that TDM, not payment. Numbers is what wins the EVE confrontation, not payment. Numbers is the advantage that wins in your scenario, and it's an advantage that is available to everyone — your restriction is not a game restriction, just an arbitrary goalpost fallacy that you slip in to ensure that it's always the (supposed) P2W side that “wins” so you can claim it was due to the unrelated factor of payment.

Quote:
What does enjoyment have to do with it?
Everything, because “[t]he advantage of not having to grind and just PvP or test stuff to your heart's content. Isn't that pretty win?” To which the answer is: no, it's not any kind of win other than that the player has more fun (maybe). The player gets more enjoyment. This is not an in-game win. You even highlight this yourself: “Just ask the people who earn decent salaries, enjoy EvE”… so yeah, no. You're no longer talking about P2W — you're talking about paying for entertainment.

Oh, and don't behave like a utter idiot. Gold ammo is the gold standard of P2W.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#292 - 2012-07-17 17:34:23 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Ok I think I figured the problem in this thread out: Some people are posting to say the truth, while others are just posting for attention and don't care about making sense or being wrong or right. They just want you to reply.
You and EpicFailTroll. Yea we know, it's just funny to watch and Tippia does such a fine job of enabling you both to make fools of yourselves. Lol

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#293 - 2012-07-17 17:35:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Gogela
classified data wrote:
How is the EVE community so against 'paying to win' gameplay and yet alts are fine Question

I once caught a guy with six alts in six haulers coming out of a wormhole. What a payday for me when I blew them up. If he hadn't had all those alts he couldn't have lost so much to me. When I use PLEX for my sub, someone else is paying for me to play... and that feels like a win. When I catch a dude with a bunch of alts in haulers, I thank him for paying for my win. When I get scam money, I again thank them for their efforts and contributions to my winning. When a noob fits a faction BS hero style, I thank him for the loot.

You can pay to play in eve, but that is very different than paying to win. You can't buy a win... a win requires good luck, clever pod skills, game knowledge, and other things that can only come from inside your skull.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#294 - 2012-07-17 17:39:01 UTC
Gogela wrote:
classified data wrote:
How is the EVE community so against 'paying to win' gameplay and yet alts are fine Question

I once caught a guy with six alts in six haulers coming out of a wormhole. What a payday for me when I blew them up. If he hadn't had all those alts he couldn't have lost so much to me. When I use PLEX for my sub, someone else is paying for me to play... and that feels like a win. When I catch a dude with a bunch of alts in haulers, I thank him for paying for my win. When I get scam money, I again thank them for their efforts and contributions to my winning. When a noob fits a faction BS hero style, I thank him for the loot.

You can pay to play in eve, but that is very different than paying to win. You can't buy a win... a win requires good luck, clever pod skills, game knowledge, and other things that can only come from inside your skull.



You don't buy a systematic win because you pay for golden ammo, you know you still get head shot just like you don't buy win in eve but just afford better chances of wining, so what will you do about the golden ammo?


brb
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#295 - 2012-07-17 17:42:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
You don't buy a systematic win because you pay for golden ammo, you know you still get head shot just like you don't buy win in eve but just afford better chances of wining, so what will you do about the golden ammo?
Good thing, then, that P2W is generally about buying advantages (ones that can't be had if you don't pay for them) and not about buying systematic wins.

Either way, P2W doesn't exist in EVE: not only can't you buy any systematic wins — you can't even buy any special advantages.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#296 - 2012-07-17 17:44:10 UTC
Keep in mind that these chuckleheads also think that if you have a better computer than they do that it is also Pay to Win. Roll

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#297 - 2012-07-17 17:45:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, as luck would have it, time spent doing stuff other than grinding in game, however low-maintenance this grinding is, is time that can be spent training, testing stuff, i.e. increasing your chances to win.
Good thing that it doesn't require any grinding then, and bad luck that “increasing your chances“ isn't the same thing as a win. Good thing, too, that the same amount of win can be had without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.

In fact, what you're talking about — training — is pretty much the opposite: it's play to win.


But paying to fund your alts increases your chance to win, since you have more time to train.

So, as facts would have it, it's P2W, since, just like gold ammo, it increases your chances to win.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
How, when alts could only be funded through RL money, and in the case of a equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, could the alt-less side get more numbers? Friends?The scenario is an equal number of equally skilled players on both sides, can you even compute that?
Friends would be one way. More skills, better equipment would be another. All of it can be had without paying, and no matter how much you try to restrict one side from having the advantages in a single scenario, the simple fact remains: the same advantages can be had without payment, thus no P2W.


Snipping again? snipped part in italics. Equal numbers on each side. Alts could not be had without paying RL money at the time.
"Equally skilled" and you answer "more skills, better equipment" ? Are you breaking down?

The same advantages could not be had without paying, because.... alts could not be had without paying RL money at the time.


Tippia wrote:
They are if you strictly equate numbers with payment the way you have to do if you want to argue that it's the payment that creates the win. With this equivalence, Quake TDM is P2W because the team that has more players paid the most will have an advantage over the team that paid less. Of course, this view of P2W is patently absurd as is the notion that payment ≡ numbers. Therefore we decouple the two. Numbers is what wins that TDM, not payment. Numbers is what wins the EVE confrontation, not payment. Numbers is the advantage that wins in your scenario, and it's an advantage that is available to everyone — your restriction is not a game restriction, just an arbitrary goalpost fallacy that you slip in to ensure that it's always the (supposed) P2W side that “wins” so you can claim it was due to the unrelated factor of payment.


What does EFT says about that? I wonder
"In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 once for each client and you're done."

Can you reliably control multiple characters in a FPS?

In Derkastan, you can get a high post in the government, either through giving money to the president (corruption), or working your way up: what is the state of the regime? Is it corrupt? Is it not corrupt?
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#298 - 2012-07-17 17:48:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
You don't buy a systematic win because you pay for golden ammo, you know you still get head shot just like you don't buy win in eve but just afford better chances of wining, so what will you do about the golden ammo?
Good thing, then, that P2W is generally about buying advantages (ones that can't be had if you don't pay for them) and not about buying systematic wins.

Either way, P2W doesn't exist in EVE: not only can't you buy any systematic wins — you can't even buy any special advantages.



Indeed I don't pay to win, I just pay for an advantage increasing my chances of wining. I agree those are two different sentences.

brb
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#299 - 2012-07-17 17:55:06 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But paying to fund your alts increases your chance to win, since you have more time to train.
…an advantage you could have without paying for it.

Quote:
Equal numbers on each side.
…doesn't change the fact that the same advantage can be had without paying for it by having friends, better skils, and better equipment, no matter how much you wish to restrict one side's access to those advantages in this single scenario. Since payment doesn't provide any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying for it, there is no P2W.

Quote:
What does EFT says about that? I wonder
The same thing he always says, which, as always, doesn't actually address the point: if you strictly equate numbers with payment the way you have to do in order to make the claim that it's payment that generates the win, then you've stretched the meaning of P2W to the point of being completely meaningless. As luck would have it, numbers and payment are not the same thing. It's the numbers that win the fight, not the payment.

Quote:
Can you reliably control multiple characters in a FPS?
Yes. Just use multiple players. Since they have to pay more, and since paying more gives them an advantage, it's P2W, right?

Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Indeed I don't pay to win, I just pay for an advantage increasing my chances of wining. I agree those are two different sentences.
Paying for an advantage (that can't be had without paying for it) is pretty much the definition of P2W. So no, the difference isn't nearly as big as you're tryign to make it out to be.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#300 - 2012-07-17 17:56:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So, as facts would have it, it's P2W, since, just like gold ammo, it increases your chances to win

Except, gold ammo can only be acquired by paying money for it, and in EvE everything can be acquired for ISK as well.

So, again, what advantage are you able to purchase in EvE for real money (that you cannot pay ISK for) which increases the chance you will win?

edit: Look, I will make it easy:

"In EvE, you are able to spend money on ____________ which allows a player to ___________ which he is unable to do without paying for it"

Complete that, and you win the argument.

"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,