EVE General Discussion

…and again, the “advantage” is not in-game: it's the RL-world advantage of being able to play the game.

If you want to frame the advantage as “being able to control the lives of PLEXers” then it's still not a pay-for advantage. The advantage in question actually comes from the ability to deny access to PLEXes on the market. This advantage is available to anyone with ISK, and in terms of “pay for”, the way PLEX sellers do it is to not pay for PLEXes any more.

So it's NP2W, at best.

“But you have to pay to do that!” No. Setting aside for a moment that CCP has 10,000 confiscated PLEXes sitting around to be seeded if someone tries to manipulate the market, the reality of the situation is this: Player LolISKIsFreeis an ISK-collecting mastermind. One day, he decides to cash in 1 trillion ISK he found between two cushions on his sofa, so he cashes that loose change in for what equates to the daily average of PLEX sold in Jita (just over 2000). He can now play the game for the next 185 years. He spends those 185 years doing what you're suggesting: denying other players access to PLEX on the market. He does this solely through the application of ISK.

…and are completely devoid of examples of advantages that can only be had by paying for them.

By taking the third option rather than the first: using friends rather than not using them. I have provided this way from the get go, but you refuse to accept it because you only want to compare options 1 and 2 and ignore the fact that option 3 exists. You have to ignore it for your line of reasoning to work, since it's the option that, as long as it exists, removes P2W. As luck would have it, neither you, nor anyone else, has been able to provide an example where that third option does not exist (well… unlucky for you, since that means your reasoning no longer works).

…that are completely devoid of examples of advantages that can only be had by paying for them.

The same holds true for the ability to get the “pay for” advantage — it is also tied to contingencies that may preclude its usage. This still doesn't change the fact that the same advantage can be had by not paying for it. In fact, it just further illustrates how it follows the exact same rules.

In short, all you're doing is setting up a false dichotomy. This fallacy doesn't prove that there is any kind of P2W — it only proves that you refuse to accept the simple fact that there are more options than you are willing to include in your scenarios, and that you are biasing the options by overlooking factors for one and overstating factors for the other that are actually there fore both of them.

You are going in circles.
One says a solo player who pays for additional accounts has an advantage.
The other one says this advantage can be had without paying for additional accounts.

The first one refuses to stop being a solo player, I think that's the important point here.

Well .. how about that: I refuse to fly anything more isk expensive than a T1 frigate. Hey, why can't I do level 4 missions? That's so unfair!

The advantage is that you can buy in-game stuff with real money. Assume two otherwise equal players (could be plural or singular, doesn't matter,) but one pays for ISK and the other does not. This is an advantage that you can only get by paying real money for it. Assuming that in all other ways the players are equal, for the sake of demonstration, the one who buys the advantage has the advantage.

Well, arguing like that makes the existence of PLEX at all "pay to win", too..

I would fully expect that those who argue alts are P2W would agree with that statement as well.

It is.

I did. Hence the conclusion. Alt-less players are not at a disadvantage because they don't pay — they are at a disadvantage because they choose not to make use of any of the means to get the advantage. Paying is not the only way of doing so. False dichotomy; ignoring the third option; does not show P2W and does not illustrate an advantage that can't be had if you're not paying for it.

No, we're discussing whether or not there are options available that provide the same advantage without paying for it, and you're dismissing the fact that there are on the grounds that the ability to make use of that option is contingent on some set of factors. By the same logic, we can dismiss the payment option on the grounds that the ability to make use of that option is contingent on some set of factors.

No. Tthat's what you're doing.

What I'm doing is treating both options equally. I don't inject the “A has contingencies, but let's ignore B's contingencies” bias, nor do set up a fallacious false dichotomy. I also don't base my judgement on the “having an advantage is an advantage over not having an advantage” platitude. Your entire reasoning consists of these three fundamentally flawed points.

Meanwhile, you have not been able to demonstrate an advantage that cannot be had without paying for it — the one, very simple thing that would show that there is P2W.

Yes. Please do. The advantage that PLEX provides (ISK) can be had without paying for it. Thus no P2W. Simple enough?

Dunno, effectively unlimited isk making gathering materials relatively trivial and isolated perfectly cooperative metagaming collectives seem pretty neck and neck.