These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#521 - 2012-07-19 18:11:52 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
[quote=EpicFailTroll]What if :
1- I cannot realistically PLEX it?
2- I want to fly solo and not use alts?
3- I don't fly solo, but have conflicting playtimes with my corpmates?
4- My corpmates don't want to be my market eyes?
5- My corpmates don't want to be my intel eyes?
6- Nobody wants to do it for isk - which I don't have enough of to PLEX- because it's boring

What are my ingame options except alts?


1 - Just because you can't afford it with ISK, doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to use it. What if I can't afford a Titan? How is it fair that someone else can have one and I can't?

2- Your choice to make, but like deciding to not use faction ammo for RP reasons, you will lose out on a potential advantage*

3- You're in the wrong corp .... your problem isn't game design

4- eve-central, also, wrong corp again

5- Map tools and alts. If you don't want to use an alt, see 1)

6- Offer more. Everyone has their price.

* I say potential advantage, since for them to be an advantage, you need to not have friends who can do the same. e.g. my boosting alt can't use T2 links yet my friend can (actually true) which means getting his help is better than paying for the same.

Ultimately, you can 100% prove that alt accounts are the biggest advantage possible, and it still wouldn't be a pay-to-win game as you can get that advantage without paying.

You *are* making alts your thing to wail and cry about, as:

- The reality is most people do use alts, even miners. They are more common than turning PLEX to ISK for better equipment.
- Use of alts can be replaced by treating EvE as an MMORPG (scouting, etc) whereas advantages more relevent to PVP performance (faction all the things) give much much higher rewards for less up front cost.
- Your posting history is 100% (yes, 100%) on the topic of alts being bad.

"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,

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#522 - 2012-07-19 18:20:24 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Pay to win - I pay real money and get an in-game advantage. Whether it is a short-cut to something that is already available through other means, or if it is something that is not otherwise available is irrelevant. You can pay the developer (or a third party) real money to gain some sort of advantage.

We have this in EVE currently in the form of PLEX and alternate accounts. Assuming the goal is to get rid of the ability for players to spend cash for in-game advantages, getting rid of PLEX is easy enough (although will likely **** a lot of people off and lose customers.) Finding a solution to alts is much more difficult.

But hey, who cares about the integrity of the simulation/sandbox when there's cash to be made? We can use that money that we get by making the game worse to then make the game better! Makes total sense!

EDIT: Why is **** censored? Is urine censored too? Consider this my official test. Bet it isn't.

EDIT 2: Nope, urine is okay but **** is not. Makes about as much sense as spending real cash for an advantage in an interactive simulation.


Plex can be bought with isk though so its not like thats much of an issue for poor people.
Overseer Aliena
Lord of Wars
#523 - 2012-07-19 18:21:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Overseer Aliena
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Overseer Aliena wrote:

You want the benefits that come with multiple party involvement, without the multiple parties included. Good luck with that one.


Exactly the point, summed up in one sentence and without misleading snips and quotes. People have been steadily pretending that the benefits that come from multiple party involvement are readily available for all, when they really aren't when other players aren't available or can't/won't help, and if you don't use alts, as I've demonstrated there

This is also their basis in pretending that alts are no P2W in EvE, -according to their definition of P2W: something which cannot be acquired through ingame means- which is quite disturbing.



If alts are P2W, then so are corps. Corps are formed so that multiple parties can benefit from each other. If a player cannot find a corp or prefers not to group with one but still wants the benefits of multiple parties, they will go with alts which now function in the same manner that a corporation does, and in fact many corporations are formed entirely of alts.

Now if a player chooses to not join a corp or field an army of alts then they have 2 choices; they can either suck it up and realize that they will be at a disadvantage against multiple party resources, or they can go play another ******* game. But to come on here and complain that they are at a disadvantage against multiple parties because they gain a numerical advantage to the players one ship and is thus unfair, well,cry me a river.

BTW, if your corpmates can't be ass'd to perform as simple of function as checking the market of the area they are in, then you fail as a corp. If they can't be bothered enough to participate in group activities such as scouting or flying the command ship for their teammates, then you fail as a corp. If you and your corpmates can't coordinate something as simple as a planned event with a planned time, then you fail as a corp. IF you are only together simply to boost employment size to avoid wardecs, then you fail as a corp.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#524 - 2012-07-19 18:35:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Pay to win - I pay real money and get an in-game advantage. Whether it is a short-cut to something that is already available through other means, or if it is something that is not otherwise available is irrelevant. You can pay the developer (or a third party) real money to gain some sort of advantage.

We have this in EVE currently in the form of PLEX and alternate accounts. Assuming the goal is to get rid of the ability for players to spend cash for in-game advantages, getting rid of PLEX is easy enough (although will likely **** a lot of people off and lose customers.) Finding a solution to alts is much more difficult.

But hey, who cares about the integrity of the simulation/sandbox when there's cash to be made? We can use that money that we get by making the game worse to then make the game better! Makes total sense!

EDIT: Why is **** censored? Is urine censored too? Consider this my official test. Bet it isn't.

EDIT 2: Nope, urine is okay but **** is not. Makes about as much sense as spending real cash for an advantage in an interactive simulation.


Plex can be bought with isk though so its not like thats much of an issue for poor people.


Except that doesn't actually have any bearing on whether or not the people who purchase PLEX for real money and then sell them for ISK are buying an in-game advantage with cash (in principle and context it's just like people who pay real money for a second account do.) The only reason we look the other way is because it helps poor people still be able to play (which honestly may be the only reason such a system is tolerable ... and barely tolerable at that. Aurum, on the other hand, doesn't have any saving graces in a game that's supposed to be the ultimate science fiction simulator.)

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#525 - 2012-07-19 18:38:08 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
It's like you people can't read. One will completely ignore alts, and focus on the isk/plex issue, another will say options are available, when I've plainly demonstrated that they aren't at all in quite a few cases, a third will say "find other people", when it's already been proven that cases do exist when this is not an option. Only this makes sense:

Overseer Aliena wrote:


If alts are P2W, then so are corps. Corps are formed so that multiple parties can benefit from each other. If a player cannot find a corp or prefers not to group with one but still wants the benefits of multiple parties, they will go with alts which now function in the same manner that a corporation does, and in fact many corporations are formed entirely of alts.

Now if a player chooses to not join a corp or field an army of alts then they have 2 choices; they can either suck it up and realize that they will be at a disadvantage against multiple party resources, or they can go play another ******* game. But to come on here and complain that they are at a disadvantage against multiple parties because they gain a numerical advantage to the players one ship and is thus unfair, well,cry me a river.

BTW, if your corpmates can't be ass'd to perform as simple of function as checking the market of the area they are in, then you fail as a corp. If they can't be bothered enough to participate in group activities such as scouting or flying the command ship for their teammates, then you fail as a corp. If you and your corpmates can't coordinate something as simple as a planned event with a planned time, then you fail as a corp. IF you are only together simply to boost employment size to avoid wardecs, then you fail as a corp.



Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.

The problem is the implementation of ingame options to lessen the need for alts, would of course make alts much less useful, if at all, and would bring less revenue for CCP, since PLEX has to be bought with RL money at some point anyway. This is why people say that alts are a form of P2W, since they are pretty much mandatory. Could anybody provide hard data on the number of single account players vs. multiple accounts players?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#526 - 2012-07-19 18:40:57 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Could anybody provide hard data on the number of single account players vs. multiple accounts players?


Can't provide hard data, but I'm single-account, always have been. On principle. Besides, I have a hard enough time managing just one spaceship at a time. Lol

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Overseer Aliena
Lord of Wars
#527 - 2012-07-19 19:05:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Overseer Aliena
EpicFailTroll wrote:
It's like you people can't read. One will completely ignore alts, and focus on the isk/plex issue, another will say options are available, when I've plainly demonstrated that they aren't at all in quite a few cases, a third will say "find other people", when it's already been proven that cases do exist when this is not an option. Only this makes sense:

Overseer Aliena wrote:


If alts are P2W, then so are corps. Corps are formed so that multiple parties can benefit from each other. If a player cannot find a corp or prefers not to group with one but still wants the benefits of multiple parties, they will go with alts which now function in the same manner that a corporation does, and in fact many corporations are formed entirely of alts.

Now if a player chooses to not join a corp or field an army of alts then they have 2 choices; they can either suck it up and realize that they will be at a disadvantage against multiple party resources, or they can go play another ******* game. But to come on here and complain that they are at a disadvantage against multiple parties because they gain a numerical advantage to the players one ship and is thus unfair, well,cry me a river.

BTW, if your corpmates can't be ass'd to perform as simple of function as checking the market of the area they are in, then you fail as a corp. If they can't be bothered enough to participate in group activities such as scouting or flying the command ship for their teammates, then you fail as a corp. If you and your corpmates can't coordinate something as simple as a planned event with a planned time, then you fail as a corp. IF you are only together simply to boost employment size to avoid wardecs, then you fail as a corp.



Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.

The problem is the implementation of ingame options to lessen the need for alts, would of course make alts much less useful, if at all, and would bring less revenue for CCP, since PLEX has to be bought with RL money at some point anyway. This is why people say that alts are a form of P2W, since they are pretty much mandatory. Could anybody provide hard data on the number of single account players vs. multiple accounts players?



Stop trying to separate alts from other multiparty entities. A group of alts working together serve the exact same function as a group of players. A player in a corp may be a full time hauler. An alt may also be a full time hauler. A player in a corp may be in industry. An alt may be in Industry. Several players may go on a mining OP. Several Alts may go on a mining op. The only difference between the 2 is the number of players on the other end of the monitor which, unless blatantly obvious or you being psychic, is physically impossible to tell the difference. You want to chase terrorism.

Alts are not a need, they are a want or option. Alts serve the purpose of gaining advantages through multi-party use. To reduce that advantage is to reduce the advantage of being in a corp with your fellow teammates. You don't want to raise yourself to those standards, so you ask for them to be lowered to yours. In union there is strength. this is why people talk about the 9000 strong corp, not Joe the miner.
Andrey Wartooth
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
#528 - 2012-07-19 19:07:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrey Wartooth
I don't understand how people equate buying some game time equates to paying to win. You either get some game time, or you get some isk to buy the same ships everyone else has.

Buying a plex is basically paying some extra money so you don't have to play so much.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#529 - 2012-07-19 19:10:19 UTC
Since it's not going to change (CCP devs like eating and paying the rent too much) I suggest the people unhappy with the situation find a way of dealing with it.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#530 - 2012-07-19 19:11:43 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.
No, no-one has said that the disadvantage doesn't exist. What we're saying is that the advantage is something you can get without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#531 - 2012-07-19 19:17:43 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
It's like you people can't read. One will completely ignore alts, and focus on the isk/plex issue, another will say options are available, when I've plainly demonstrated that they aren't at all in quite a few cases, a third will say "find other people", when it's already been proven that cases do exist when this is not an option. Only this makes sense:

Overseer Aliena wrote:


If alts are P2W, then so are corps. Corps are formed so that multiple parties can benefit from each other. If a player cannot find a corp or prefers not to group with one but still wants the benefits of multiple parties, they will go with alts which now function in the same manner that a corporation does, and in fact many corporations are formed entirely of alts.

Now if a player chooses to not join a corp or field an army of alts then they have 2 choices; they can either suck it up and realize that they will be at a disadvantage against multiple party resources, or they can go play another ******* game. But to come on here and complain that they are at a disadvantage against multiple parties because they gain a numerical advantage to the players one ship and is thus unfair, well,cry me a river.

BTW, if your corpmates can't be ass'd to perform as simple of function as checking the market of the area they are in, then you fail as a corp. If they can't be bothered enough to participate in group activities such as scouting or flying the command ship for their teammates, then you fail as a corp. If you and your corpmates can't coordinate something as simple as a planned event with a planned time, then you fail as a corp. IF you are only together simply to boost employment size to avoid wardecs, then you fail as a corp.



Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.

The problem is the implementation of ingame options to lessen the need for alts, would of course make alts much less useful, if at all, and would bring less revenue for CCP, since PLEX has to be bought with RL money at some point anyway. This is why people say that alts are a form of P2W, since they are pretty much mandatory. Could anybody provide hard data on the number of single account players vs. multiple accounts players?



Probably they can't, because you can do this with multiple e-mail addresses and payment methods while being the same guy behind the computer, then I can perfectly demonstrate I can be totally invisible on the internet including for CCP to know if I'm playing with one or "x" accounts from the same IP

And actually I don't think it's in majority's interest tor really know how many people actually play eve with one + "x" number of other accounts, starting by CCP witch is perfectly defensible, they're a company first your second mom after.

brb
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#532 - 2012-07-19 19:24:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.
No, no-one has said that the disadvantage doesn't exist. What we're saying is that the advantage is something you can get without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.



Yes I can still head shot the guy who bought golden ammo and the "omgfckin" weapon I can't get if I haven't pay for. He didn't bought the P2W but he has just increased his chances of succeeding, and he could perfectly do it for free, with only proves that guy is this perfect idiot in this business model.
Just like everyone in Eve that has at least one alt, just another idiot that couldn't get someone else help.

Amirite? Lol

brb
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#533 - 2012-07-19 19:27:57 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
It's like you people can't read. One will completely ignore alts, and focus on the isk/plex issue, another will say options are available, when I've plainly demonstrated that they aren't at all in quite a few cases, a third will say "find other people", when it's already been proven that cases do exist when this is not an option. Only this makes sense:

Overseer Aliena wrote:


If alts are P2W, then so are corps. Corps are formed so that multiple parties can benefit from each other. If a player cannot find a corp or prefers not to group with one but still wants the benefits of multiple parties, they will go with alts which now function in the same manner that a corporation does, and in fact many corporations are formed entirely of alts.

Now if a player chooses to not join a corp or field an army of alts then they have 2 choices; they can either suck it up and realize that they will be at a disadvantage against multiple party resources, or they can go play another ******* game. But to come on here and complain that they are at a disadvantage against multiple parties because they gain a numerical advantage to the players one ship and is thus unfair, well,cry me a river.

BTW, if your corpmates can't be ass'd to perform as simple of function as checking the market of the area they are in, then you fail as a corp. If they can't be bothered enough to participate in group activities such as scouting or flying the command ship for their teammates, then you fail as a corp. If you and your corpmates can't coordinate something as simple as a planned event with a planned time, then you fail as a corp. IF you are only together simply to boost employment size to avoid wardecs, then you fail as a corp.



Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.

The problem is the implementation of ingame options to lessen the need for alts, would of course make alts much less useful, if at all, and would bring less revenue for CCP, since PLEX has to be bought with RL money at some point anyway. This is why people say that alts are a form of P2W, since they are pretty much mandatory. Could anybody provide hard data on the number of single account players vs. multiple accounts players?



Probably they can't, because you can do this with multiple e-mail addresses and payment methods while being the same guy behind the computer, then I can perfectly demonstrate I can be totally invisible on the internet including for CCP to know if I'm playing with one or "x" accounts from the same IP

And actually I don't think it's in majority's interest tor really know how many people actually play eve with one + "x" number of other accounts, starting by CCP witch is perfectly defensible, they're a company first your second mom after.


Tis true. I don't remember a memo where CCP stated they were going to make EVE a place where the playing field is always level, and no one can EVER gain an advantage over his fellow players.

Instead, they gave you not one but two ways to obtain one of those advantages (the ability to run multiple accounts), that being via cash or via ISK.

Of course, trying to run multiple accounts is a very debatable advantage... one that is most useful to those that have difficulty working with others. Fortunately CCP cares about the socially inept as well. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#534 - 2012-07-19 19:29:04 UTC
Overseer Aliena wrote:

Stop trying to separate alts from other multiparty entities. A group of alts working together serve the exact same function as a group of players. A player in a corp may be a full time hauler. An alt may also be a full time hauler. A player in a corp may be in industry. An alt may be in Industry. Several players may go on a mining OP. Several Alts may go on a mining op. The only difference between the 2 is the number of players on the other end of the monitor which, unless blatantly obvious or you being psychic, is physically impossible to tell the difference. You want to chase terrorism.

Alts are not a need, they are a want or option. Alts serve the purpose of gaining advantages through multi-party use. To reduce that advantage is to reduce the advantage of being in a corp with your fellow teammates. You don't want to raise yourself to those standards, so you ask for them to be lowered to yours. In union there is strength. this is why people talk about the 9000 strong corp, not Joe the miner.



For the RL solo player, alts are a need, since every other solo player uses them. He is at a disadvantage if he chooses not to, and does not have the same ingame options available (since he's solo and does not want/does not have access ingame friends). Such options however be made available, such as "traffic info for Empire gates, Interbus hauling, black market haulers shopping for you in Empire". To provide such convenience amongst others would lessen the need for alts, which would lessen revenue for CCP. Hence the problem some of us have with them, and the argument that they're P2W.

It's not the case of a solo, roleplayer, or technically challenged player vs. a corp, the convenience it offers (and which it should be the only entity to offer, btw) and the evidence that a RL single person will always be less powerful than several RL persons. it's the case of a solo player vs another solo player, the latter choosing or being able to use alts.: the former is clearly at a disadvantage, since he's out of options to offset the added value of alts, which are linked to RL money in one form of another.

Alts are encouraged by gameplay as it is, and since they bring in revenue, some cynics argue that they are really P2W.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#535 - 2012-07-19 19:42:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those people do realize they are at a disadvantage. They do mind it a bit, but the problem is, when trying to address that, the vocal majority on this forum will herp and derp and say that no such disadvantage exist, because options are there, even when they aren't, for those particular people.
No, no-one has said that the disadvantage doesn't exist. What we're saying is that the advantage is something you can get without paying for it. Thus, no P2W.


But you can get the advantage by paying for it. Thus pay to win. P

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Overseer Aliena
Lord of Wars
#536 - 2012-07-19 19:51:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Overseer Aliena
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Overseer Aliena wrote:

Stop trying to separate alts from other multiparty entities. A group of alts working together serve the exact same function as a group of players. A player in a corp may be a full time hauler. An alt may also be a full time hauler. A player in a corp may be in industry. An alt may be in Industry. Several players may go on a mining OP. Several Alts may go on a mining op. The only difference between the 2 is the number of players on the other end of the monitor which, unless blatantly obvious or you being psychic, is physically impossible to tell the difference. You want to chase terrorism.

Alts are not a need, they are a want or option. Alts serve the purpose of gaining advantages through multi-party use. To reduce that advantage is to reduce the advantage of being in a corp with your fellow teammates. You don't want to raise yourself to those standards, so you ask for them to be lowered to yours. In union there is strength. this is why people talk about the 9000 strong corp, not Joe the miner.



For the RL solo player, alts are a need, since every other solo player uses them. He is at a disadvantage if he chooses not to, and does not have the same ingame options available (since he's solo and does not want/does not have access ingame friends). Such options however be made available, such as "traffic info for Empire gates, Interbus hauling, black market haulers shopping for you in Empire". To provide such convenience amongst others would lessen the need for alts, which would lessen revenue for CCP. Hence the problem some of us have with them, and the argument that they're P2W.

It's not the case of a solo, roleplayer, or technically challenged player vs. a corp, the convenience it offers (and which it should be the only entity to offer, btw) and the evidence that a RL single person will always be less powerful than several RL persons. it's the case of a solo player vs another solo player, the latter choosing or being able to use alts.: the former is clearly at a disadvantage, since he's out of options to offset the added value of alts, which are linked to RL money in one form of another.

Alts are encouraged by gameplay as it is, and since they bring in revenue, some cynics argue that they are really P2W.




so·lo/ˈsōlō/
Noun:
A thing done by one person unaccompanied, in particular.
Adjective:
For or done by one person alone; unaccompanied: "a solo album".
Verb:
Perform something unaccompanied, in particular.
Synonyms:
single - solitary - sole

Running with an alt is a multiparty function, which functions the same as if you have a teammate with you. If you haven't figured out where I am going with this, it means that a solo player is no longer solo. Think McFly, think! If you are running by yourself and you get jumped by 2 ships, you are being attacked by multiple parties, not by another solo player. Again, the only difference between multiple players and alts is how many people are on the other side of the monitor.

By the way, can you provide some hard evidence that every other solo player flies with alts?

Again since this is so hard to figure out. Alts are a choice. If the player does not want to raise him or herself up to the standards that multiparty groups enjoy, then he will be at a disadvantage. You cannot truly realistically expect one ship to stand against 2+, regardless of the number of players controlling them, and survive unless he is either truly incredible or the group is just that bad.

Stop trying to separate alts from other Multiparty entities.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#537 - 2012-07-19 19:55:46 UTC
Overseer Aliena wrote:


so·lo/ˈsōlō/
Noun:
A thing done by one person unaccompanied, in particular.
Adjective:
For or done by one person alone; unaccompanied: "a solo album".
Verb:
Perform something unaccompanied, in particular.
Synonyms:
single - solitary - sole

Running with an alt is a multiparty function, which functions the same as if you have a teammate with you. If you haven't figured out where I am going with this, it means that a solo player is no longer solo. Think McFly, think! If you are running by yourself and you get jumped by 2 ships, you are being attacked by multiple parties, not by another solo player. Again, the only difference between multiple players and alts is how many people are on the other side of the monitor.

By the way, can you provide some hard evidence that every other solo player flies with alts?

Again since this is so hard to figure out. Alts are a choice. If the player does not want to raise him or herself up to the standards that multiparty groups enjoy, then he will be at a disadvantage. You cannot truly realistically expect one ship to stand against 2+, regardless of the number of players controlling them, and survive unless he is either truly incredible or the group is just that bad.

Stop trying to separate alts from other Multiparty entities.


To be fair, there is a distinction. It's just not exactly on point to the discussion.

Alternate accounts are an advantage employed by a single player precisely because they emulate other players. Whether this is good or bad depends on how comfortable you are with people being able to buy an advantage in EVE for real life cash.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#538 - 2012-07-19 20:03:56 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:



For the RL solo player, alts are a need, since every other solo player uses them. He is at a disadvantage if he chooses not to, and does not have the same ingame options available (since he's solo and does not want/does not have access ingame friends). Such options however be made available, such as "traffic info for Empire gates, Interbus hauling, black market haulers shopping for you in Empire". To provide such convenience amongst others would lessen the need for alts, which would lessen revenue for CCP. Hence the problem some of us have with them, and the argument that they're P2W.

It's not the case of a solo, roleplayer, or technically challenged player vs. a corp, the convenience it offers (and which it should be the only entity to offer, btw) and the evidence that a RL single person will always be less powerful than several RL persons. it's the case of a solo player vs another solo player, the latter choosing or being able to use alts.: the former is clearly at a disadvantage, since he's out of options to offset the added value of alts, which are linked to RL money in one form of another.

Alts are encouraged by gameplay as it is, and since they bring in revenue, some cynics argue that they are really P2W.



I fail to see an answer to my question EFT. Is it because the answer smacks your arguement down? or is it because its too hard for you?

Can you answer this


Player A Spends $$ each month on 3 Alts

Player B spends Isk Each month on 3 Alts

Both Players have EXACTLY the same SP trained chars for different roles IE 1 Off grid Booster. 1 Falcon pilot and 1 combat pilot.


Let us assume (as we a putting "Scenerios" into the arguement) That Player B gains sufficient Isk Passively for all 3 accounts (believe me, its 100% possible)


How can Player A be P2W, but not Player B?

(Added question)

What adavantage has Player A bought over Player B

Also
Overseer Aliena
Lord of Wars
#539 - 2012-07-19 20:04:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Overseer Aliena
Mechael wrote:
Overseer Aliena wrote:


so·lo/ˈsōlō/
Noun:
A thing done by one person unaccompanied, in particular.
Adjective:
For or done by one person alone; unaccompanied: "a solo album".
Verb:
Perform something unaccompanied, in particular.
Synonyms:
single - solitary - sole

Running with an alt is a multiparty function, which functions the same as if you have a teammate with you. If you haven't figured out where I am going with this, it means that a solo player is no longer solo. Think McFly, think! If you are running by yourself and you get jumped by 2 ships, you are being attacked by multiple parties, not by another solo player. Again, the only difference between multiple players and alts is how many people are on the other side of the monitor.

By the way, can you provide some hard evidence that every other solo player flies with alts?

Again since this is so hard to figure out. Alts are a choice. If the player does not want to raise him or herself up to the standards that multiparty groups enjoy, then he will be at a disadvantage. You cannot truly realistically expect one ship to stand against 2+, regardless of the number of players controlling them, and survive unless he is either truly incredible or the group is just that bad.

Stop trying to separate alts from other Multiparty entities.


To be fair, there is a distinction. It's just not exactly on point to the discussion.

Alternate accounts are an advantage employed by a single player precisely because they emulate other players. Whether this is good or bad depends on how comfortable you are with people being able to buy an advantage in EVE for real life cash.



I make decisions for me and nobody else. What somebody else does with their money is their business. If they want to create an army of mining ships and run their own corp, hey, great for them. I. Don't. Give. A. ****. They are putting forth the effort to compete against larger groups and that has precisely Jack to do with my goals in game. I understand that I will not have the same output as other corps, and I accept that. I will not ask that other people should be reduced in efficiency because I refuse to keep up.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#540 - 2012-07-19 20:10:38 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:

I fail to see an answer to my question EFT. Is it because the answer smacks your arguement down? or is it because its too hard for you?

Can you answer this


Player A Spends $$ each month on 3 Alts

Player B spends Isk Each month on 3 Alts

Both Players have EXACTLY the same SP trained chars for different roles IE 1 Off grid Booster. 1 Falcon pilot and 1 combat pilot.


Let us assume (as we a putting "Scenerios" into the arguement) That Player B gains sufficient Isk Passively for all 3 accounts (believe me, its 100% possible)


How can Player A be P2W, but not Player B?

(Added question)

What adavantage has Player A bought over Player B

Also



You could have read what I've already linked a dozen times and saved yourself the pain of having the moves like tippia. Some people cannot use alts and have no access to help from other players etc

Your scenario addresses people who all use alts. This is not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what kind of options to level the playfield are there available for solo players who cannot use alts, to put them on the same level of efficiency as solo players who do use them? Solo, as in solo, no friends or corpmates.