These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#701 - 2012-07-21 07:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
malcovas Henderson wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
He wants the advantage of numbers removed. To say Alts are unfair, but friends is not is contridictory at best. Removing Alts as unfair means removing friends as unfair. Making everything solo.

Alts and friends are different in how they are played. but still numbers. And as you can use friends instead of Alts. That negates any advantage Alts make.


That is quite wrong: alts are used in such a way that they provide the less micro-requiring and yet most efficient advantage. People playing a character do not want to sit idle at a tower or safe boosting a gang, orbiting a gate cloaked for hours on end, or spending their time hauling in Empire (not all their time anyway). Alts provide an undue advantage, since no living player would accept to spend all its playtime performing those very necessary yet very boring tasks.
Tasks which cannot be done through other ingame means, therefore putting players not using alts, at a disadvantage.

But if you really do equate alts with other living players, comparing advantages gained through metagame, to absolutely standard ingame playing and bond-forming, let's just say you're blatantly dishonest. Just like Tippia, but much less verbose, sad and tiresome as he is however. It's a breath of fresh air.


BECAUSE that option of other players being able to do it EXISTS, means making a gate watching alt cannot be P2W.


This is untrue. Anyone can have alts. Your friends can have alts. You can play by yourself with alts. Numbers of people are irrelevant here, while numbers of characters are what matters. The fact remains that alts give advantages whether you're solo or already in a corp full of people who also have many alts each. The fact also remains that all alts are paid for with real money. This is about as cut-and-dry as pay-to-win gets, short of an in-game item shop full of gold ammo.

The real kicker is that we all pay a subscription fee (or multiple subscription fees, in the cases of people who sell PLEXes and those who fund their alts out of their own bank accounts) on top of pay-to-win game mechanics.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#702 - 2012-07-21 07:51:36 UTC
Mechael wrote:


Except alts and friends are quite different from one another. Let me put it this way ... if the game were designed such that alts did not provide a significant advantage (for whatever reason ... say actually playing the game was too intensive for even the best of players to possibly manage more than one ship at a time, such that trying to divide your attention between two ships was actually less effective than flying one ship well ... it could really be any method, but that one is off the top of my head) and yet having friends who would also be pushing themselves to the limit to only manage one ship each was still just as much an advantage as it is today, does liking friends and disliking alts still make no sense?

In an ideal EVE, alts would not be a means of gaining an advantage. Friends, of course, still would be.


The fact still remains. Alts offer no different advantages over options ingame. They offer convenience but no advantage.

3 scenrios

S1 player A ratting in null. friend watching gate
S2 Player B ratting null Alt watching gate
S3 Player C ratting null solo

Who has the most advantage?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#703 - 2012-07-21 07:55:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Except alts and friends are quite different from one another. Let me put it this way ... if the game were designed such that alts did not provide a significant advantage (for whatever reason ... say actually playing the game was too intensive for even the best of players to possibly manage more than one ship at a time, such that trying to divide your attention between two ships was actually less effective than flying one ship well ... it could really be any method, but that one is off the top of my head) and yet having friends who would also be pushing themselves to the limit to only manage one ship each was still just as much an advantage as it is today, does liking friends and disliking alts still make no sense?

In an ideal EVE, alts would not be a means of gaining an advantage. Friends, of course, still would be.


The fact still remains. Alts offer no different advantages over options ingame. They offer convenience but no advantage.

3 scenrios

S1 player A ratting in null. friend watching gate
S2 Player B ratting null Alt watching gate
S3 Player C ratting null solo

Who has the most advantage?


How is convenience not an advantage? How is having a second character that will do my bidding no ifs, ands, or buts about it not an advantage over a friend with a mind of his own? In some scenarios, like watching gates, alts are superior to friends. They simply are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination and should not be treated as such.

And even if they were identical to friends, they are friends that you can generate by giving real money to CCP. Which is still an advantage that you get by paying real money. Which is pretty much what paying to win is.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#704 - 2012-07-21 07:56:06 UTC
Mechael wrote:


This is untrue. Anyone can have alts. Your friends can have alts. You can play by yourself with alts. Numbers of people are irrelevant here, while numbers of characters are what matters. The fact remains that alts give advantages whether you're solo or already in a corp full of people who also have many alts each. The fact also remains that all alts are paid for with real money. This is about as cut-and-dry as pay-to-win gets, short of an in-game item shop full of gold ammo.

The real kicker is that we all pay a subscription fee (or multiple subscription fees, in the cases of people who sell PLEXes and those who fund their alts out of their own bank accounts) on top of pay-to-win game mechanics.


The kicker here, is people buy plex for isk. thats what they bought it for. Alts are paid for plex that cost isk not real money.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#705 - 2012-07-21 07:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
malcovas Henderson wrote:


This is based on YOUR assumptions. Just because Alts make it easier, does not mean the option of players doing it disapears. BECAUSE that option of other players being able to do it EXISTS, means making a gate watching alt cannot be P2W.

I do not equate Alts as seperate players. I equate Alts as Alts doing what players can also do.

What part of the game can Alts do that a player cannot. By Cannot I mean Cannot. Not "does not" want to do. But cannot.


There isn't a nullsec corp that doesn't use a slew of alts (forcing corp officers to each have some) to static scout key systems.
Why don't they ask this of players, and therefore save PLEX or subscription fees?

A player can also sit all day at a pos tower boosting a gang. Yet only alts do it. Why is that so?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#706 - 2012-07-21 08:00:26 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


This is untrue. Anyone can have alts. Your friends can have alts. You can play by yourself with alts. Numbers of people are irrelevant here, while numbers of characters are what matters. The fact remains that alts give advantages whether you're solo or already in a corp full of people who also have many alts each. The fact also remains that all alts are paid for with real money. This is about as cut-and-dry as pay-to-win gets, short of an in-game item shop full of gold ammo.

The real kicker is that we all pay a subscription fee (or multiple subscription fees, in the cases of people who sell PLEXes and those who fund their alts out of their own bank accounts) on top of pay-to-win game mechanics.


The kicker here, is people buy plex for isk. thats what they bought it for. Alts are paid for plex that cost isk not real money.


PLEX comes from giving real money to CCP. Every time. Alts are paid for by real money, whether you're doing the paying or whether you're giving someone ISK to do the paying for you. Someone is paying CCP real money, and really two people are getting an advantage. The first is getting the advantage of more ISK for something which he did not earn in game. The second is getting the advantage of continuing to play even though he did not pay. It's this system that is what makes PLEX barely tolerable, even though it is a gross form of pay to win, it does have its merits. Like allowing more people to play ... oh wait ... I see where this is going. Free to play. It's basically the same thing, only more blatant and extreme about it.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#707 - 2012-07-21 08:04:03 UTC
Mechael wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Except alts and friends are quite different from one another. Let me put it this way ... if the game were designed such that alts did not provide a significant advantage (for whatever reason ... say actually playing the game was too intensive for even the best of players to possibly manage more than one ship at a time, such that trying to divide your attention between two ships was actually less effective than flying one ship well ... it could really be any method, but that one is off the top of my head) and yet having friends who would also be pushing themselves to the limit to only manage one ship each was still just as much an advantage as it is today, does liking friends and disliking alts still make no sense?

In an ideal EVE, alts would not be a means of gaining an advantage. Friends, of course, still would be.


The fact still remains. Alts offer no different advantages over options ingame. They offer convenience but no advantage.

3 scenrios

S1 player A ratting in null. friend watching gate
S2 Player B ratting null Alt watching gate
S3 Player C ratting null solo

Who has the most advantage?


How is convenience not an advantage? How is having a second character that will do my bidding no ifs, ands, or buts about it not an advantage over a friend with a mind of his own? In some scenarios, like watching gates, alts are superior to friends. They simply are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination and should not be treated as such.

And even if they were identical to friends, they are friends that you can generate by giving real money to CCP. Which is still an advantage that you get by paying real money. Which is pretty much what paying to win is.


You cannot gain an advantage over anyone that have other options open to them. If Alts were the only option and had to pay RL for them, then yes. They would be P2W. Fortunately they are not the only option available.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#708 - 2012-07-21 08:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Except alts and friends are quite different from one another. Let me put it this way ... if the game were designed such that alts did not provide a significant advantage (for whatever reason ... say actually playing the game was too intensive for even the best of players to possibly manage more than one ship at a time, such that trying to divide your attention between two ships was actually less effective than flying one ship well ... it could really be any method, but that one is off the top of my head) and yet having friends who would also be pushing themselves to the limit to only manage one ship each was still just as much an advantage as it is today, does liking friends and disliking alts still make no sense?

In an ideal EVE, alts would not be a means of gaining an advantage. Friends, of course, still would be.


The fact still remains. Alts offer no different advantages over options ingame. They offer convenience but no advantage.

3 scenrios

S1 player A ratting in null. friend watching gate
S2 Player B ratting null Alt watching gate
S3 Player C ratting null solo

Who has the most advantage?


How is convenience not an advantage? How is having a second character that will do my bidding no ifs, ands, or buts about it not an advantage over a friend with a mind of his own? In some scenarios, like watching gates, alts are superior to friends. They simply are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination and should not be treated as such.

And even if they were identical to friends, they are friends that you can generate by giving real money to CCP. Which is still an advantage that you get by paying real money. Which is pretty much what paying to win is.


You cannot gain an advantage over anyone that have other options open to them. If Alts were the only option and had to pay RL for them, then yes. They would be P2W. Fortunately they are not the only option available.


Alts are the only way to get mindless servants with no free will. It's the only way that you can undock in more than one ship at a time. It's the only way that you can run more than 11 manufacturing jobs at once, or more than 305 market orders, or contracts, or be CEO of more than one corporation, or spy on one corp while still being part of another. There are no other options that will allow you to have those advantages. Friends are not effectively the same thing, not by a long shot.

And besides, even if there are other options available, the fact remains that you can still gain an advantage in game by giving cash to CCP. This is paying to win.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#709 - 2012-07-21 08:09:24 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Mechael wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


This is untrue. Anyone can have alts. Your friends can have alts. You can play by yourself with alts. Numbers of people are irrelevant here, while numbers of characters are what matters. The fact remains that alts give advantages whether you're solo or already in a corp full of people who also have many alts each. The fact also remains that all alts are paid for with real money. This is about as cut-and-dry as pay-to-win gets, short of an in-game item shop full of gold ammo.

The real kicker is that we all pay a subscription fee (or multiple subscription fees, in the cases of people who sell PLEXes and those who fund their alts out of their own bank accounts) on top of pay-to-win game mechanics.


The kicker here, is people buy plex for isk. thats what they bought it for. Alts are paid for plex that cost isk not real money.


PLEX comes from giving real money to CCP. Every time. Alts are paid for by real money, whether you're doing the paying or whether you're giving someone ISK to do the paying for you. Someone is paying CCP real money, and really two people are getting an advantage. The first is getting the advantage of more ISK for something which he did not earn in game. The second is getting the advantage of continuing to play even though he did not pay. It's this system that is what makes PLEX barely tolerable, even though it is a gross form of pay to win, it does have its merits. Like allowing more people to play ... oh wait ... I see where this is going. Free to play. It's basically the same thing, only more blatant and extreme about it.


This is where you are wrong. People pay real money for Plex to exchange for ingame Isks. That is all. Once that Plex is in game it becomes an ingame Item available to anyone for isk and ingame items
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#710 - 2012-07-21 08:15:22 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Mechael wrote:


PLEX comes from giving real money to CCP. Every time. Alts are paid for by real money, whether you're doing the paying or whether you're giving someone ISK to do the paying for you. Someone is paying CCP real money, and really two people are getting an advantage. The first is getting the advantage of more ISK for something which he did not earn in game. The second is getting the advantage of continuing to play even though he did not pay. It's this system that is what makes PLEX barely tolerable, even though it is a gross form of pay to win, it does have its merits. Like allowing more people to play ... oh wait ... I see where this is going. Free to play. It's basically the same thing, only more blatant and extreme about it.


This is also why people so vehemently protest against the assumption that alts are linked to P2W. In their mind, EvE is really Free-to-Play, if you aren't a scrub, but are a l33t player. "Anybody with half a brain can earn 1B a day", meaning, "you really are at the bottom of the food chain if you pay for your account with real money!"
Free-to-Play players like to pride themselves on the fact that they don't spend a dime on the game, and overcome other players (the paying ones, aka baddies) through sheer skill -when most of the time, they just grind and grind to get at the same point, much slower-. But EvE isn't League of Legends, or World of Tanks, which are twitch-based. It's easy to control several characters at once and get that isk ball rolling, making grinding irrelevant at some point.

Just like girls who think that online dating sites are free because men actually pay for their subscriptions, this kind of player thinks the game is free and that they're very clever, that they've beaten it somehow, and beaten all the paying scrubbies, because they don't pay.

How could they ever get that alts are completely tied with P2W? The thought that they are must really be offensive for them, because they've grown to consider the use of alts as Free-to-Play (since alts get the ball of isk rolling).


And yet, some people wish they could play a game where people just want to play a game, not feel superior to other people, just play pretend internet spaceships, getting their kicks ingame rather than at the expense of others through Schadenfreude or the muddy joy of not having to pay subscriptions when some others do so -and would rather do so, in fact-

The metagame issue only thickens. Fasten your seatbelts.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#711 - 2012-07-21 08:16:43 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:
malcovas Henderson wrote:
Mechael wrote:


This is untrue. Anyone can have alts. Your friends can have alts. You can play by yourself with alts. Numbers of people are irrelevant here, while numbers of characters are what matters. The fact remains that alts give advantages whether you're solo or already in a corp full of people who also have many alts each. The fact also remains that all alts are paid for with real money. This is about as cut-and-dry as pay-to-win gets, short of an in-game item shop full of gold ammo.

The real kicker is that we all pay a subscription fee (or multiple subscription fees, in the cases of people who sell PLEXes and those who fund their alts out of their own bank accounts) on top of pay-to-win game mechanics.


The kicker here, is people buy plex for isk. thats what they bought it for. Alts are paid for plex that cost isk not real money.


PLEX comes from giving real money to CCP. Every time. Alts are paid for by real money, whether you're doing the paying or whether you're giving someone ISK to do the paying for you. Someone is paying CCP real money, and really two people are getting an advantage. The first is getting the advantage of more ISK for something which he did not earn in game. The second is getting the advantage of continuing to play even though he did not pay. It's this system that is what makes PLEX barely tolerable, even though it is a gross form of pay to win, it does have its merits. Like allowing more people to play ... oh wait ... I see where this is going. Free to play. It's basically the same thing, only more blatant and extreme about it.


This is where you are wrong. People pay real money for Plex to exchange for ingame Isks. That is all. Once that Plex is in game it becomes an ingame Item available to anyone for isk and ingame items


You're right about everything except where you said I'm wrong. Nothing you've said here is contrary to anything I've said, as far as I can tell. Also, you can get PLEX by blowing people who are hauling it around. Don't forget the best part! Pirate

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#712 - 2012-07-21 08:19:11 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those are ingame related issues, around which gameplay is balanced, in an ongoing work in progress.

Alts are a purely metagaming issue. Do you see the difference?


No I don't. In one case, a person has chosen to play an MMO solo and not make friends. In the other case, a person has chosen not to use all the facilities of the game to their advantage. In an MMO, having more friends is like having a bigger ship. Each friend you have increases the potential strength of any fleet you fly in.

Claiming that an MMO player having alts is "Pay to Win" but accepting having friends as "part of the game" is hypocritical.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#713 - 2012-07-21 08:19:40 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Mechael wrote:


PLEX comes from giving real money to CCP. Every time. Alts are paid for by real money, whether you're doing the paying or whether you're giving someone ISK to do the paying for you. Someone is paying CCP real money, and really two people are getting an advantage. The first is getting the advantage of more ISK for something which he did not earn in game. The second is getting the advantage of continuing to play even though he did not pay. It's this system that is what makes PLEX barely tolerable, even though it is a gross form of pay to win, it does have its merits. Like allowing more people to play ... oh wait ... I see where this is going. Free to play. It's basically the same thing, only more blatant and extreme about it.


This is also why people so vehemently protest against the assumption that alts are linked to P2W. In their mind, EvE is really Free-to-Play, if you aren't a scrub, but are a l33t player. "Anybody with half a brain can earn 1B a day", meaning, "you really are at the bottom of the food chain if you pay for your account with real money!"
Free-to-Play players like to pride themselves on the fact that they don't spend a dime on the game, and overcome other players (the paying ones, aka baddies) through sheer skill -when most of the time, they just grind and grind to get at the same point, much slower-. But EvE isn't League of Legends, or World of Tanks, which are twitch-based. It's easy to control several characters at once and get that isk ball rolling, making grinding irrelevant at some point.

Just like girls who think that online dating sites are free because men actually pay for their subscriptions, this kind of player thinks the game is free and that they're very clever, that they've beaten it somehow, and beaten all the paying scrubbies, because they don't pay.

How could they ever get that alts are completely tied with P2W? The thought that they are must really be offensive for them, because they've grown to consider the use of alts as Free-to-Play (since alts get the ball of isk rolling).


And yet, some people wish they could play a game where people just want to play a game, not feel superior to other people, just play pretend internet spaceships, getting their kicks ingame rather than at the expense of others through Schadenfreude or the muddy joy of not having to pay subscriptions when some others do so -and would rather do so, in fact-

The metagame issue only thickens. Fasten your seatbelts.


This was very well put. Being proud of playing EVE for free is incredibly doltish. Well said, sir.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#714 - 2012-07-21 08:20:40 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those are ingame related issues, around which gameplay is balanced, in an ongoing work in progress.

Alts are a purely metagaming issue. Do you see the difference?


No I don't. In one case, a person has chosen to play an MMO solo and not make friends. In the other case, a person has chosen not to use all the facilities of the game to their advantage. In an MMO, having more friends is like having a bigger ship. Each friend you have increases the potential strength of any fleet you fly in.

Claiming that an MMO player having alts is "Pay to Win" but accepting having friends as "part of the game" is hypocritical.


How is that hypocritical? Are alts the same thing as friends?

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#715 - 2012-07-21 08:25:05 UTC
You're either playing for free or you're paying to win. Hm. How silly, either way.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#716 - 2012-07-21 08:26:33 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Those are ingame related issues, around which gameplay is balanced, in an ongoing work in progress.

Alts are a purely metagaming issue. Do you see the difference?


No I don't. In one case, a person has chosen to play an MMO solo and not make friends. In the other case, a person has chosen not to use all the facilities of the game to their advantage. In an MMO, having more friends is like having a bigger ship. Each friend you have increases the potential strength of any fleet you fly in.

Claiming that an MMO player having alts is "Pay to Win" but accepting having friends as "part of the game" is hypocritical.


Maybe he has friends, but maybe he wishes to play solo, or maybe his friends aren't available?

Alts are not a facility of the game, in the sense that they're not contained ingame, just as the gang option, mwd, or scanning are. Alts are the out-of-game ability to control several avatars ingame. Since they have to be paid for one way or another, they are linked to P2W.

Also, how much fun would you have to group up with two other players, and go bust a single player controlling two other alts? I wouldn't have any.

Now, if I want to go against him while not asking for help from friends, because it would feel lame, I have no options but to get alts myself, I'm kinda forced into it.


However, I'm really starting to think that alts are F2P. Don't dwell on my musings.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#717 - 2012-07-21 08:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Wall of irrevelant text



Those that cannot make friends, or understand the meaning of MMO. Should not be playing MMO's. Period.


I got 2 games for you.


Homeworld.
Elite.

Go play them. They'll satisfy your needs completely
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#718 - 2012-07-21 08:31:43 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
But they aren't MMOs. I enjoy flying in space amongst others, and witness their hilarious chatter and zany antics.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#719 - 2012-07-21 08:35:58 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But they aren't MMOs. I enjoy flying in space amongst others, and witness their hilarious chatter and zany antics.



Here is a concept for you

Alts are multi tasking drones.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#720 - 2012-07-21 08:36:10 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But they aren't MMOs. I enjoy flying in space amongst others, and witness their hilarious chatter and zany antics.


If I had alts, I would talk to them. Because I'm insane. Still, it just wouldn't be the same as ranting incoherently to real people. Oh, Mechael-alt ... I wish you were real.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.