These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#561 - 2012-07-20 00:07:33 UTC
Well, Bob Marley, if you can't read, keep on toking! But I really can't discuss with you, since your assumptions are completely false.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#562 - 2012-07-20 00:30:15 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But, Courage Wolf, I'm not lobbying for the efficiency of other entities to be diminished -though the fact that a single player can achieve on its own corp efficiency is probably a bit disturbing-, only for the efficiency of the solo, alt-less player, to be enhanced. If more power to other entities, no problem. But at this very moment, in EvE, alts are mandatory, and that is quite a huge problem.

All the player-driven services you give as examples are only available if, well, they're available, and it must be assumed that sometimes they are not, giving the alt-funding player an edge that cannot be acquired through ingame means for the alt-less player -which was the crux of the derping for the people discussing P2W-.



No.

People CHOOSE to use alt as a convenience. They are not mandatory. EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING an alt can do, another player can do.

P2W has got to give you a clear advantage over EVERYONE that does not pay. No clear advantage is to be had by having 2 alts or 2 players doing the same job.

Lets look at the solo player

Im in a fleet of miners let say
As a solo player I yield more than anyone else in a fleet. What would be the point of fleeting? Would it be better to stay unfleeted mine into a can. blue the can, and have an ufleeted orca tow it away.

Congratulations, you have just removed Fleeting as a part of the game.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#563 - 2012-07-20 00:44:12 UTC
The clear advantage is that when no other people are here, or willing, to do your bidding, the alt-funding player has access to options the alt-less player has not access to.

This is why most people invest in them. For almost complete freedom of action.
Overseer Aliena
Lord of Wars
#564 - 2012-07-20 00:58:45 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:

All the player-driven services you give as examples are only available if, well, they're available, and it must be assumed that sometimes they are not, giving the alt-funding player an edge that cannot be acquired through ingame means for the alt-less player -which was the crux of the derping for the people discussing P2W-.



Boohoo 99.

And instead of assuming why not clarify? Oh sorry, I forgot, that takes effort.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#565 - 2012-07-20 01:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The clear advantage is that when no other people are here, or willing, to do your bidding, the alt-funding player has access to options the alt-less player has not access to.

This is why most people invest in them. For almost complete freedom of action.



Exactly as it should be.

Now......

Tell me how Player A funding his Gate watcher Alt with $$ is P2W? but.......

Player B funding his Gate watcher Alt with Isk isnt P2W, considering both sets of alts are doing the same job.


Edit: because I can
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#566 - 2012-07-20 01:12:24 UTC
Why don't you go back to page 25? I'm not comparing alt vs alt, but alt-funding single player vs. alt-less single player
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#567 - 2012-07-20 01:27:52 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Why don't you go back to page 25? I'm not comparing alt vs alt, but alt-funding single player vs. alt-less single player



No...

You are saying funding Alts with $$ are P2W.

This would be the case IF and only IF the $$ Alts gain an advantage over the Iskies Alt.

So let me rephrase that Question for you


What advantage does Player A funding his Gate watching Alt with $$ GAIN over Player B's iskies funded Gate watching Alt?
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#568 - 2012-07-20 01:31:06 UTC
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#569 - 2012-07-20 01:46:43 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Here


Look

A solo player is at a disavantage over a player with an Alt

Which is as it should be.

You are saying that by purchasing that Alt with $$ is P2W. This must mean.

A player with an Isk funded Alt is at a disadvantage, to a player with a $$ funded Alt. All I am asking is where this advantage lies? Does the $$ get to see Gate jumper before they jump? Does the hauler Alt have go faster stripes? Does the Booster Alt boost from 3 systems away?
Plutonian
Intransigent
#570 - 2012-07-20 02:11:55 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
A solo player is at a disavantage over a player with an Alt

Which is what CCP desires.


Fixed that for you. Blink
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#571 - 2012-07-20 04:59:36 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
The clear advantage is that when no other people are here, or willing, to do your bidding, the alt-funding player has access to options the alt-less player has not access to.

This is why most people invest in them. For almost complete freedom of action.



Exactly as it should be.

Now......

Tell me how Player A funding his Gate watcher Alt with $$ is P2W? but.......

Player B funding his Gate watcher Alt with Isk isnt P2W, considering both sets of alts are doing the same job.


Edit: because I can


First of all, Player A is paying to win because he's actually paying real money for an advantage. Player B is not paying real money for an advantage.

And secondly, alts are /always/ a clear advantage. Player with alts has more potential than otherwise equal player without alts. Whether you take that on a solo level or on a huge alliance level, it's the same. The guys with the alts have an advantage. An advantage that you can pay for with real money.

It's bad enough that the game is designed so that alts give an advantage (though this is understandable, as I haven't yet come across a game where this is not the case ... much innovation would be needed) ... but compounded by the fact that it can be bought with real money (again, hard to avoid) makes it all the worse.

It'd be understandable if there was a clear direction in the company to innovate and come up with a way to remove the advantages of alts without sacrificing the advantages of having friends. But there really hasn't been any mention of such a direction, which I find mildly worrying.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#572 - 2012-07-20 22:50:48 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:

Look

A solo player is at a disavantage over a player with an Alt

Which is as it should be.
?


Why should it be so? In any other multiplayer game, the amount of micro required to effectively control a single character is large enough so you can't realistically control another one. And if you do, you increase the chances to mess up, which makes it counter-productive.

In EvE, there are so many occasions, combat related or not, where an alt is such a zero micro-requiring advantage, that they are a breeze to use, therefore mandatory for the solo player who does not wishes to be severely handicapped.

And since they bring revenue, how can you argue that they are not a form of P2W?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#573 - 2012-07-20 22:54:59 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Why should it be so?
Because 2 > 1.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#574 - 2012-07-20 23:03:36 UTC
Hi guys, have we reached a conclusion yet?

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Jim Era
#575 - 2012-07-20 23:17:07 UTC
I remember in EQ, there was this guy who had like 7 accounts, all paid for with real money, all 100% legit, and he had them botted somehow to make the same action and would dominate everything (almost) he came around.

You should not be limited to the number of accounts that are allowed to be made...thats just ******* stupid.


but the fact remains that EVE is one of the only games that you can actually have an alt without having to pay real money.

you're all ********

Wat™
Hiyora Akachi
Blood Alcohol Content
T O P S H E L F
#576 - 2012-07-20 23:39:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Hiyora Akachi
Jim Era wrote:
I remember in EQ, there was this guy who had like 7 accounts, all paid for with real money, all 100% legit, and he had them botted somehow to make the same action and would dominate everything (almost) he came around.

You should not be limited to the number of accounts that are allowed to be made...thats just ******* stupid.


but the fact remains that EVE is one of the only games that you can actually have an alt without having to pay real money.

you're all ********



Multiboxer, not a botter. Two different things.


Not sure how alts equate to pay to win.

But some people have brought up PLEX as being P2W. They're not. I can hand them in for ISK, sure. But does that ISK give me an unfair advantage over another player? "Yeah you bought ingame currency so you can buy ships/mods." But are those mods and ships better than anything legitly available? No?


See, not pay to win.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#577 - 2012-07-20 23:41:33 UTC
Hiyora Akachi wrote:

Not sure how alts equate to pay to win.

But some people have brought up PLEX as being P2W. They're not. I can hand them in for ISK, sure. But does that ISK give me an unfair advantage over another player? "Yeah you bought ingame currency so you can buy ships/mods." But are those mods and ships better than anything legitly available? No?


See, not pay to win.


You should read this.

Enjoy!
Jason Xado
Doomheim
#578 - 2012-07-20 23:51:25 UTC
Jim Era wrote:
I remember in EQ, there was this guy who had like 7 accounts, all paid for with real money, all 100% legit, and he had them botted somehow to make the same action and would dominate everything (almost) he came around.

You should not be limited to the number of accounts that are allowed to be made...thats just ******* stupid.


but the fact remains that EVE is one of the only games that you can actually have an alt without having to pay real money.

you're all ********


Please do not confuse botting with multiboxing. Botting is against the rules. Multiboxing is not.

There just seems to be a lot of players who don't know the difference.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#579 - 2012-07-20 23:52:10 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Hi guys, have we reached a conclusion yet?
We can fairly safely conclude that EFT has trouble showing any kind of advantage that you can only get by paying for it.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#580 - 2012-07-20 23:55:12 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Can you buy a monocle for ISK btw?

Tippia wrote:
DrSmegma wrote:
Hi guys, have we reached a conclusion yet?
We can fairly safely conclude that EFT has trouble showing any kind of advantage that you can only get by paying for it.


I don't have that problem - go create a PLEX with ISK. P

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.