These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#641 - 2012-07-21 02:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So alt-less players are at disadvantage because they do not use alts when no ingame options are available to them?
Strawman fallacy.

Players who choose not to use the methods to gain the advantage are at a disadvantage. Paying is not the only way to get the advantage.


The only way outside of alts, for a solo player vs another solo player funding alts, is ingame help from other players, which is heavily tied to contingencies, therefore not always available, if at all, since numerous tasks are alt-territory only, and no RL player would do it.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Well, if in scenario B the solo player cannot use alts because contingencies have it that he cannot pay for them, and has no access to ingame friends, he's at a disadvantage vs. a player with friends, as should be, and is on an even ground with another alt-less player with no friends. So why should we dismiss the alt/payment option (just because there are cases when it is unavailable, making the playfield even? Everything is normal and coherent ingame, in such a case)
Yet another strawman. Who said we should? Again, I'm treating both equally — you're the one who absolutely have to turn it into a false-dichotomy fallacy.

If you want to dismiss one option because it's conditional, then dismiss all conditional options… and guess what, your alt-less player is no longer at a disadvantage.

The fact remains: you have yet to show an advantage that cannot be had without paying for it. You really should focus on coming up with that rather than adding a argument-from-repetition (of fallacies) fallacy to your increasing list of no actual proof at all.


But you see, dismissing conditional options in the case of the alt-funding player, rendering him altless, makes the playfield even, everything is normal and there is nothing to discuss, since there is no metagaming advantage going on. There is no problem, and therefore no arguing needed.
Oh wait, that's the bolded part in parentheses, which you had removed from the quote! Seriously?

But that's not what we are discussing here. We're discussing something that provides ground for arguing: the alt-less solo player vs the alt-funding solo player, metagaming and its relation to P2W.

The fact remains: actual proof is there
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#642 - 2012-07-21 02:52:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Corina Jarr wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.

What about someone who is very capable and participated in both in game and plex earnings? Wouldn't they have an advantage over those who chose one or the other?

Yep, just like the person who decides to use T3s will have an advantage over the guy choosing to only use a shuttle.

Hence the reason why greater isk generation is an advantage. Plex enhances isk generation potentially to close a gap between 2 players or, if the plex seller was ahead, further widen that gap. Granted you can get isk other ways, but you can get isk and sell plex as well still leaving you ahead of someone making isk the same way you are.

Was just trying to make a random comment though, not trying to get dragged into the debate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#643 - 2012-07-21 02:54:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The only way outside of alts, for a solo player vs another solo player funding alts, is ingame help from other players, which is heavily tied to contingencies, therefore not always available, if at all, since numerous tasks are alt-territory only, and no RL player would do it.
…just like being able to fun alts is heavily tied to contingencies and not always available. So that's a meaningless and thoroughly biased scenario that ignores the range of options available.

Quote:
But you see, dismissing conditional options in the case of the alt-funding player, rendering him altless, makes the playfield even, everything is normal and there is nothing to discuss
Exactly. So stop rejecting options just because they are conditional. The fact remains: options exists, and you have yet to show any kind of advantage that cannot be had without paying for it.

Quote:
But that's not what we are discussing here.
Exactly. What we're discussing is whether or not paying grants any kind of advantage that cannot be had without paying. You claim that there are, but haven't been able to show any of the kind and instead repeat silly platitudes about how having an advantage is an advantage over not having that advantage and offering false dichotomies to support this completely meaningless truism.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#644 - 2012-07-21 02:59:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Corina Jarr wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
I am talking about being able to generate more ISK than the person who does not spend real money on PLEX is able to generate.
…and as luck would have it, generating just as much ISK without spending real money on it is very much possible. It may take a bit more time (but not necessarily) if you do it in-game but that's the only difference, so all it is is player convenience: you're spending money (=work-yadda-yadda-time) to save on play time.

What about someone who is very capable and participated in both in game and plex earnings? Wouldn't they have an advantage over those who chose one or the other?

Yep, just like the person who decides to use T3s will have an advantage over the guy choosing to only use a shuttle.

Hence the reason why greater isk generation is an advantage. Plex enhances isk generation potentially to close a gap between 2 players or, if the plex seller was ahead, further widen that gap. Granted you can get isk other ways, but you can get isk and sell plex as well still leaving you ahead of someone making isk the same way you are.

Was just trying to make a random comment though, not trying to get dragged into the debate.

Yes but it is a choice.

And it is possible to make the same isk in game in the same amount of time that a person would be working in RL to buy PLEX.
So unless you get to ridiculous extreme circumstances that are entirely moronic, it is possible to keep up with a person who uses RL money with only in game means.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#645 - 2012-07-21 03:04:56 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The only way outside of alts, for a solo player vs another solo player funding alts, is ingame help from other players, which is heavily tied to contingencies, therefore not always available, if at all, since numerous tasks are alt-territory only, and no RL player would do it.
…just like being able to fun alts is heavily tied to contingencies and not always available. So that's a meaningless and thoroughly biased scenario that ignores all the options.


But what problem is there, solo player vs. solo player, when it's impossible to fund alts?

Should we discuss normal non-metagame added gameplay, how normal is it, how even is the playfield, how people who group together are stronger than loners, while lone wolves pitted against each other only rely on their personal skill, and not on heavily RL money-related metagaming options?

Well it's really normal and just like most games. Can you add anything more exciting to that?


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
But you see, dismissing conditional options in the case of the alt-funding player, rendering him altless, makes the playfield even, everything is normal and there is nothing to discuss
Exactly. So stop rejecting options just because they are conditional. The fact remains: options exists, and you have yet to show any kind of advantage that cannot be had without paying for it.


There's nothing to discuss in the case of two players having no alts. What we are discussing here, is the case one with vs. one without.

When a solo player, for reasons exposed in my lengthy tldr;, does not wishes to invest in the metagame known as alts and, due to contingencies and faulty mechanics, has no access to help from other players or ingame options, because they are not implemented, he is at a severe disadvantage versus another solo player who uses alts.

Since alts are tied to RL money, the question of P2W arises.

Tippia wrote:
What we're discussing is whether or not paying grants any kind of advantage that cannot be had without paying. You claim that there are, but haven't been able to show any of the kind and instead repeat silly platitudes about how having an advantage is an advantage over not having that advantage and offering false dichotomies to support this completely meaningless truism.


No, we're discussing why EvE players seem to be so adamantly against P2W, while they think alts are okay. I addressed that in the link above. As suspected, like the pervert and vicious troll you are, you've only been able to parade trite rhetorical idioms, faulty but shiny logic gates, and complete hypocrisy, without actually addressing anything in my exposition of the problem.

Hell, even on 4chan, when people post complete and base truisms, nobody pays attention. Don't feed the troll!
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#646 - 2012-07-21 03:06:34 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Yes but it is a choice.

And it is possible to make the same isk in game in the same amount of time that a person would be working in RL to buy PLEX.
So unless you get to ridiculous extreme circumstances that are entirely moronic, it is possible to keep up with a person who uses RL money with only in game means.


Possible, but the circumstances have to be just right (ie person doesn't make a whole lot of money/time IRL and doesn't buy a whole lot of PLEX, meanwhile other person is making enough ISK to keep up while also spending the time that the first person spends working in EVE.) Fact is, spending real money (beyond the base entry fee) is an advantage in EVE. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I don't think it's a good thing, because I'm not okay with spending real money on a game for an advantage. I call that a pay to win situation for short. Gold ammo is one type of pay to win scenario, sure, but it's not the only type.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#647 - 2012-07-21 03:14:37 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But what problem is there, solo player vs. solo player, when it's impossible to fund alts?
None. So stop rejecting options just because they're conditional.

Quote:
There's nothing to discuss in the case of non-alts on both sides, since we are discussing one with vs. one without,
There's plenty to discuss since we're discussing one with friends and one without… you know, the other option to gain the advantage you're so disturbed by?

Quote:
Since alts are tied to RL money, the question of P2W arises.
…and since the same advantage can be had without the expenditure of RL money, the question sinks again.

Just to be mean, I'll ask you again: can you describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#648 - 2012-07-21 03:21:16 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:

Yes but it is a choice.

And it is possible to make the same isk in game in the same amount of time that a person would be working in RL to buy PLEX.
So unless you get to ridiculous extreme circumstances that are entirely moronic, it is possible to keep up with a person who uses RL money with only in game means.

Typically one wants to avoid that choice in a subscription based game as not everyone can make it equally. It creates the possibility that 2 otherwise equal individuals have a quantifiable difference created via out of game resources. A person making 5B a month who decides to drop a couple plex in Jita now made 6B that month and is closed to whatever they bought those plex to obtain while someone making the same using just ingame means is now 1B behind.

In the case of 2 unequal individuals it also alters the nature of time spent in game. Couple hours of shooting sleepers to make isk for PvP vs dropping a plex in Jita. Provided they play the same amount of time one spends 2 more hours out PvP'ing.

As to the issue of how long it takes out of game to generate the wealth to be able to take advantage of it, that's highly subjective as rates of accumulating wealth can have extreme variances from person to person. Then you have to somehow take into account personal obligations and priorities, because while one may have the extra money to contribute to making their play experience easier, why should they have to to be competitive?

Time to accumulate wealth is also largely irrelevant as all it represents is one of many possible ways one can spend their time out of game and as such should have no bearing in game.

I'm not saying it should be removed, just acknowledging that it does provide an advantage in game.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#649 - 2012-07-21 03:22:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Just to be mean, I'll ask you again: can you describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it.


The advantage itself is that a person who purchases PLEX for cash and sells that PLEX for ISK has more resources at his disposal in less time than the person who does not. Purchasing PLEX for cash and selling it for ISK is an ISK generation advantage that you can only get by spending real money. Being able to generate ISK faster than your opponent is a clear advantage. There is currently no faster (legal) way to generate ISK than by doing whatever the best in-game ISK generating activity is at any given time AND buying a whole bunch of PLEX on top of it.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#650 - 2012-07-21 03:28:52 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But what problem is there, solo player vs. solo player, when it's impossible to fund alts?
None. So stop rejecting options just because they're conditional.


What does it have to do with what we're discussing? We're discussing the very frequent and evident scenario of a single solo player who does not wish to indulge in metagaming and fund alts. Why should he? Does he have to invest in alts, just to be on par with every other solo player who does?


Tippia wrote:
There's plenty to discuss since we're discussing one with friends and one without… you know, the other option to gain the advantage you're so disturbed by?


No, we're discussing solo players, one with alts, the other without. And ingame help is not always an option


Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Since alts are tied to RL money, the question of P2W arises.
…and since the same advantage can be had without the expenditure of RL money, the question sinks again.

Just to be mean, I'll ask you again: can you describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it.


Let's quote again the OP's question: "How is the EVE community so against 'paying to win' gameplay and yet alts are fine?" Alts is the crux of the problem there.

Can you describe what ingame options a solo player who does not want to indulge in the RL money related metagaming that alts are, can use to be on an even playfield with another player who does indulge in such metagaming -ingame help from other players aside, since it's very much tied to contingencies the alt-using player is not subject to as explained lenghtily? Regardless of whether or not those alts are paid for with isk or PLEX. Those PLEX have to be bought with RL money first. All the alt metagaming is tied to RL money.

Are alts mandatory?
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#651 - 2012-07-21 03:35:34 UTC
I think it would help if we define 'winning' in Eve, good luck.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#652 - 2012-07-21 03:35:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
So let me see if I can't get this straight ...

Paying real money for ISK is not an advantage because you can earn ISK in game?

Alts are not an advantage purchased with real money because you can keep them active by paying someone ISK to pay the real money for you?

Is that really what I'm arguing against? I hope not, because there's really nothing to argue against there.

EDIT: Wow! The mods are all over this thread! Whoever you are out there, mysterious person, I would like to state for the record that the post which was erased was not intended to be a personal attack or anything of the sort. I am genuinely impressed. Big smile Anyway, keep up the good work.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2012-07-21 03:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Wait, are we arguing that alts (and now plex apparently) are/aren't an advantage? Or that they are/aren't P2W? And for that matter how are we defining P2W?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#654 - 2012-07-21 03:41:53 UTC
Mechael wrote:
The advantage itself is that a person who purchases PLEX for cash and sells that PLEX for ISK has more resources at his disposal in less time than the person who does not. Purchasing PLEX for cash and selling it for ISK is an ISK generation advantage that you can only get by spending real money. Being able to generate ISK faster than your opponent is a clear advantage. There is currently no faster (legal) way to generate ISK than by doing whatever the best in-game ISK generating activity is at any given time AND buying a whole bunch of PLEX on top of it.
The problem with this is that it assumes infinite time and/or infinite money available (not to mention infinite PLEX buyers).

Without those infinites, an alternative exists: in the same time it takes for the PLEX seller to earn money to buy said PLEX, the non-buyer spends more time earning ISK directly.

…and then there's the detail that the connection between ISK and advantages is, shall we say, loose. It's a handy time-skip, there's no denying that, but as mentioned, that's for the benefit of the player more than for the in-game character.

EpicFailTroll wrote:
What does it have to do with what we're discussing?
It relates to your biased treatment of the various options, where you reject one (well… a whole set of them actually) for reasons that should also make you reject the other. If you want to discuss the existence of advantages and how to get them, then stop arbitrarily rejecting advantages or we're inherently discussing a situation where there is no problem to begin with.

Quote:
No, we're discussing solo players, one with alts, the other without.
No. We're discussing the existence of P2W — something that won't exist if paying doesn't provide you with any special advantages that can't be had without paying for it. You are trying to red-herring your way out of this discussion by focusing entirely on a biased scenario where you have prejudiced the setup and dismissed the existence of other options than the one you want to claim is the only one that exists.

Quote:
Can you describe what ingame options a solo player who does not want to indulge in the RL money related metagaming that alts are, can use to be on an even playfield with another player who does indulge in such metagaming?
Friends. Better skills (and skillz). Better equipment. All options are available to him. Whether he chooses to use them or not does not change the fact that they exist.

Since you couldn't provide an example this time, I'll ask you again… but you're quickly running out of chances to prove your point: can you describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#655 - 2012-07-21 03:44:31 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wait, are we arguing that alts (and now plex apparently) are/aren't an advantage? Or that they are/aren't P2W? And for that matter how are we defining P2W?

TL;DR
1) yes/no/maybe

2) yes

3) both sides of the issue are using two different definitions of P2W, hence the circles...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#656 - 2012-07-21 03:47:30 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wait, are we arguing that alts (and now plex apparently) are/aren't an advantage? Or that they are/aren't P2W? And for that matter how are we defining P2W?

TL;DR
1) yes/no/maybe

2) yes

3) both sides of the issue are using two different definitions of P2W, hence the circles...

I guess I just got disqualified as while I recognize the advantage of both I see neither as any sort of guarantee of victory. I'm willing to call it a day at that.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#657 - 2012-07-21 03:48:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Wait, are we arguing that alts (and now plex apparently) are/aren't an advantage? Or that they are/aren't P2W? And for that matter how are we defining P2W?


Related link: Massively Article

Pay 2 win is never as simple as, "I paid, therefore I win." Even with "gold ammo" skill still comes into effect, as well as numerous other things like desire to win a fight at all (maybe you just want to watch your own ship blow up for the lulz and find taking pot-shots with gold-ammo fun?) and a stable internet connection.

The whole concept revolves around paying for an advantage. Something that will tip the odds in your favor. Something that you can get with cash that you couldn't otherwise get. Like gold ammo, or time-saving thing-a-ma-bobs, or a lucky hat if you're superstitious (a psychological edge is still an edge, no? Ask any pro-team or military about the importance of uniforms.) Therefore, in my opinion (my opinion: key words) any time you can get in-game anything (doesn't matter what, beyond the admission fee) for cash, the game becomes unbalanced and I call it "pay to win" or "supremely ridiculous and largely un-fun" for short.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
ISD TYPE40
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#658 - 2012-07-21 03:55:09 UTC
Once again, please refrain from personal attacks and off topic posting as it does nothing to further a conversation. Thank you kindly.


Thread has yet again been cleaned of off topic posts and personal insults - ISD Type40

[b]ISD Type40 Lt. Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#659 - 2012-07-21 03:59:52 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
What does it have to do with what we're discussing?
It relates to your biased treatment of the various options, where you reject one (well… a whole set of them actually) for reasons that should also make you reject the other. If you want to discuss the existence of advantages and how to get them, then stop arbitrarily rejecting advantages or we're inherently discussing a situation where there is no problem to begin with.


We're discussing the very frequent and evident scenario of a single solo player who does not wish to indulge in metagaming and fund alts. Why should he? Does he have to invest in alts, just to be on par with every other solo player who does?

How is rejecting metagaming arbitrary? Are alts mandatory?


Tippia wrote:
No. We're discussing the existence of P2W — something that won't exist if paying doesn't provide you with any special advantages that can't be had without paying for it. You are trying to red-herring your way out of this discussion by focusing entirely on a biased scenario where you have prejudiced the setup and dismissed the existence of other options than the one you want to claim is the only one that exists.


But no. We're discussing why alts are a form of P2W, or not. The scenario is only a scenario amongst others, but it is potentially a highly frequent one (solo player vs solo player, alts vs none, no other players involved), and the profound problem it poses, plus the easy solution it calls for -investing in alts-, makes it so that most of the playerbase does in fact invest in alts.

Do you suggest that alts are mandatory?

Or, according to your logic, warp core stabilizers were not a problem, because you could always fit more points? and yet even, this was an ingame option, not a metagame one.


Tippia wrote:
Quote:
Can you describe what ingame options a solo player who does not want to indulge in the RL money related metagaming that alts are, can use to be on an even playfield with another player who does indulge in such metagaming?
Friends. Better skills (and skillz). Better equipment. All options are available to him. Whether he chooses to use them or not does not change the fact that they exist.

Since you couldn't provide an example this time, I'll ask you again… but you're quickly running out of chances to prove your point: can you describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it.


Friends are often not an option, but you've been hypocritically pretending they always are, so it's no wonder you cite them as one. Skills and equipment are irrelevant when you're outnumbered three alts (one offgrid moreover) to your one ship.

My point has been proven in the link. If you choose to be a rancid troll, not discuss anything precisely, and dismiss disturbing questions by questions drifting away from a very precise point (alts), maybe you should seek outside help. This can't be fun!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#660 - 2012-07-21 04:13:45 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
We're discussing the very frequent and evident scenario of a single solo player who does not wish to indulge in metagaming and fund alts.
No. We're discussing the existence of P2W. You are claiming that it exist by harping on about a prejudiced scenario where you reject the existence of other options out of hand in order to prove that no options exist. It might not fully qualify as begging the question, but is close enough, and is a false dichotomy regardless.

Quote:
It's only a scenario amongst others, but it is potentially a highly frequent one
…and it doesn't prove anything about the existence of P2W due to its inherently flawed construction.

Quote:
Do you suggest that alts are mandatory?
Whatever gave you that silly idea?

Quote:
Friends are often not an option,
Irrelevant — the option exists, as do skills and equipment, which are most certainly relevant since they can provide some of the same advantages.

Now, can you or can you not describe an advantage in EVE that is only available to those who pay RL money? I'm not interested in scenarios or choices or contingencies or anything else where circumstances conspire to rob one side or the other of access to something — I want you to describe the advantage itself and why RL money is the only way of getting it. Any further evasion on your part means and unqualified “no”.