These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#681 - 2012-07-21 06:23:05 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#682 - 2012-07-21 06:25:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.


And still irrelevant to the topic. This has no bearing on whether or not alts are A) advantageous and B) can be purchased for real money. Pay to win, right?

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#683 - 2012-07-21 06:29:12 UTC
Mechael wrote:
And still irrelevant to the topic.
No, it's the entire topic.

Just because alts are advantageous doesn't mean that the same advantages can't be had without them.
Just because you can pay for those advantages doesn't mean you have to.

The fact that a third (and fourth and fifth) option exists to paying for alts or going without advantages means that alts are not P2W.

Just because some people choose to not make use of the advantages available to them does not mean that the existence of advantages automatically translate into P2W.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#684 - 2012-07-21 06:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
Aside from convenience generally being an out-of-game concept… define “convenience”.
Some people would say that it's hugely convenient not having to pay real money for your game, and since the advantages provided by alts can be provided through other means, they'd rather say that EVE has do-no-pay-to-win.

Oh, and the in-game means are still other people.


Are you even trying now. It's like we're in high school. Define define?

What means are available to get the same advantages as an alt-funding player has, for the alt-less player, who has no access to ingame help from other people?


Tippia wrote:
…and other people. Oh, and some advantages are available through equipment and skills (and skillz).


But I've already stated a dozen times that we're discussing the case of the solo player without access to ingame help. Talking to you is getting weirder and weirder.
Equipment and skills do not offset an offgrid boosting alt, a remote rep alt, a falcon alt. But maybe you think they do. Nothing surprises me anymore.


Tippia wrote:
…aside from giving a list of options available that will provide the same advantages numerous times.


Actually the very same you just gave above, about two or three times, while I had already addressed them before you even mentioned those. I gave the exact same response, and yet, again "people equipment skillz"



Tippia wrote:
"If I reject the second one, there's no problem, it's altless player vs. altless player, what is there to discuss?"Exactly. So don't reject options just because they are contingent on other factors. Also, don't confuse active choice with availability.


If we are to discuss gameplay/metagame issues, we are to discuss, well, issues, not circumstances when there are none. I reject scenarios because they offer no gameplay imbalance. You then create a fallacious link by saying we should then reject scenarios that offer gameplay imbalances.

And choosing or not to invest in an alt is not at all an ingame choice, like fitting a cloaking device is. It's an out-of-game, metagame choice. It is also tied with RL money and is related to P2W.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#685 - 2012-07-21 06:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.


So you mean that not choosing to invest in alts is a choice comparable to flying solo ingame?
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?

Because that's the only way they can get an even playfield with another solo player, who is himself funding alts.

Or do you mean that it's only normal that an alt-less solo player is at a disadvantage vs. an alt-funding solo player?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#686 - 2012-07-21 06:44:42 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
And still irrelevant to the topic.
No, it's the entire topic.

Just because alts are advantageous doesn't mean that the same advantages can't be had without them.
Just because you can pay for those advantages doesn't mean you have to.

The fact that a third (and fourth and fifth) option exists to paying for alts or going without advantages means that alts are not P2W.

Just because some people choose to not make use of the advantages available to them does not mean that the existence of advantages automatically translate into P2W.


So if paying to win is optional, it's no longer paying to win?

"I'll have the pay-to-win package, please."

"No thanks, not for me. I enjoy being disadvantaged."

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#687 - 2012-07-21 06:46:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
What means are available to get the same advantages as an alt-funding player has, for the alt-less player, who has no access to ingame help from other people?
He can find help from other people; he can use better equipment; in some cases, better skills (or skillz) will do the trick.

Quote:
But I've already stated a dozen times that we're discussing the case of the solo player without access to ingame help.
…and his choice to run solo doesn't eradicate the option of getting friends and/or using skills and/or using better equipment and/or just flying like a god.

Quote:
Actually the very same you just gave above, about two or three times
Yup. One would think that you'd stop making such silly claims as not having seen it by now, but apparently, you really like the list and want to see it over and over again.

Quote:
If we are to discuss gameplay/metagame issues, we are to discuss, well, issues, not circumstances when there are none.
Exactly. So stop rejecting options that are contingent on other factors.

Quote:
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?
Nope. And choosing not to invest in alts isn't necessarily the same thing as flying solo, no. Those are just two options. There are a third (and a fourth and a fifth and…).
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#688 - 2012-07-21 06:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Mechael wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
And still irrelevant to the topic.
No, it's the entire topic.

Just because alts are advantageous doesn't mean that the same advantages can't be had without them.
Just because you can pay for those advantages doesn't mean you have to.

The fact that a third (and fourth and fifth) option exists to paying for alts or going without advantages means that alts are not P2W.

Just because some people choose to not make use of the advantages available to them does not mean that the existence of advantages automatically translate into P2W.


So if paying to win is optional, it's no longer paying to win?

"I'll have the pay-to-win package, please."

"No thanks, not for me. I enjoy being disadvantaged."


Sorry, I re-read that a little bit. It seems you still believe that the advantages that alts provide can be found somewhere other than alts, and that alts are not paid for with real money in every case? I don't see any evidence to back up either assertion. In fact, quite the opposite.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#689 - 2012-07-21 06:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EPicFailTroll wrote:
What means are available to get the same advantages as an alt-funding player has, for the alt-less player, who has no access to ingame help from other people?"
He can find help from other people; he can use better equipment; in some cases, better skills (or skillz) will do the trick.

Seriously, did you read what you just quoted, and wrote?
"for the alt-less player, who has no access to ingame help from other people -> "He can find help from other people"
I'm going to like your post, you've been sitting at 8665 far too long, and I burst out laughing

Equipment and skills do not offset an offgrid boosting alt, a remote rep alt, a falcon alt. But maybe you think they do. Nothing surprises me anymore.


Tippia wrote:
…and his choice to run solo doesn't eradicate the option of getting friends and/or using skills and/or using better equipment and/or just flying like a god.

See above, half of which is a copy-paste from my precendent answer


Tippia wrote:
One would think that you'd stop making such silly claims as not having seen it by now, but apparently, you really like the list and want to see it over and over again.

I don't mind responding over and over to it again, either, and watching you writing as if I hadn't.


Tippia wrote:
"If we are to discuss gameplay/metagame issues, we are to discuss, well, issues, not circumstances when there are none" Exactly. So stop rejecting options that are contingent on other factors.

I'm confused. Why shouldn't I reject, in a discussion that addresses gameplay/metagaming issues, scenarios when none of such arise?
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#690 - 2012-07-21 06:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:
EPicFailTroll wrote:
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?
Nope. And choosing not to invest in alts isn't necessarily the same thing as flying solo, no. Those are just two options. There are a third (and a fourth and a fifth and…).


But choosing to invest in alts is not an ingame option, and the added convenience it gives, is not accessible through ingame means, for the solo player.


Come on now, you're a well-programmed bot? or are you on meds?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#691 - 2012-07-21 07:03:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EPicFailTroll wrote:
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?
Nope. And choosing not to invest in alts isn't necessarily the same thing as flying solo, no. Those are just two options. There are a third (and a fourth and a fifth and…).


But choosing to invest in alts is not an ingame option, and the added convenience it gives, is not accessible through ingame means, for the solo player.


Come on now, you're a well-programmed bot? or are you on meds?


It is an option. It's just choosing to be disadvantaged. Kind of like choosing to purposefully gimp your own ship's fitting, yeah.

And Tippia, alts are not friends and should not be treated as such. Nor do friends give the same advantages that alts do. The similarities stop as soon as you realize that friends can also have alts, and that alts don't have a mind of their own.

Me with two ships undocked instead of one ship undocked is a far cry from me and a friend each undocked in ships.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#692 - 2012-07-21 07:03:55 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.


So you mean that not choosing to invest in alts is a choice comparable to flying solo ingame?
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?

Because that's the only way they can get an even playfield with another solo player, who is himself funding alts.

Or do you mean that it's only normal that an alt-less solo player is at a disadvantage vs. an alt-funding solo player?




The solo player is at a disadvantage against 3 friends, but you are ok with this? Is this P2W? or should Combat be always 1v1?

It is beyond me that you actually think MMO's should be only for solo players.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#693 - 2012-07-21 07:06:15 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.


So you mean that not choosing to invest in alts is a choice comparable to flying solo ingame?
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?

Because that's the only way they can get an even playfield with another solo player, who is himself funding alts.

Or do you mean that it's only normal that an alt-less solo player is at a disadvantage vs. an alt-funding solo player?




The solo player is at a disadvantage against 3 friends, but you are ok with this? Is this P2W? or should Combat be alway 1v1?

It is beyond me that you actually think MMO's should be only for solo players.





He doesn't think that MMOs should be only for solo players. He's illustrating a point. Also, alts do not equal friends. They are each very distinct, and they each come with a different set of advantages and disadvantages even though there is some small overlap.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#694 - 2012-07-21 07:13:26 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Well, there are people who really enjoy to solo, and interact from afar, loners, if you will. They'd rather do stuff on their own.
…and that's their choice, not a lack of options.


So you mean that not choosing to invest in alts is a choice comparable to flying solo ingame?
You state that not having alts is an ingame choice, comparable to not fitting a warp core stabilizer?

Because that's the only way they can get an even playfield with another solo player, who is himself funding alts.

Or do you mean that it's only normal that an alt-less solo player is at a disadvantage vs. an alt-funding solo player?




The solo player is at a disadvantage against 3 friends, but you are ok with this? Is this P2W? or should Combat be alway 1v1?

It is beyond me that you actually think MMO's should be only for solo players.



Of course I'm okay with this. I really don't understand though why you don't see the problem with alts, and how this is tied to P2W.

Even kids on 4chan understand it, in this thread pertaining to EvE, on /vg/. And they sit on dragon dildos.
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#695 - 2012-07-21 07:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Mechael wrote:
malcovas henderson wrote:




The solo player is at a disadvantage against 3 friends, but you are ok with this? Is this P2W? or should Combat be alway 1v1?

It is beyond me that you actually think MMO's should be only for solo players.





He doesn't think that MMOs should be only for solo players. He's illustrating a point. Also, alts do not equal friends. They are each very distinct, and they each come with a different set of advantages and disadvantages even though there is some small overlap.



That is exactly what he is saying. 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.

EpicFailTroll wrote:



Of course I'm okay with this. I really don't understand though why you don't see the problem with alts, and how this is tied to P2W.


The Solo player is still at a disadvantage against the 3 friends. No difference in going against 3 alts. You cannot dislike one but not the other. to do that does not make sense
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#696 - 2012-07-21 07:18:05 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So yes, there are quite a few cases when it's not convenient, or even not available at all. Why should the player who flies solo be at a severe disadvantage vs the player who flies with alts?


Why should the player who refuses to fly anything larger than a frigate be at a severe disadvantage compared to the player who flies a cruiser? Isn't that paying to win?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#697 - 2012-07-21 07:23:45 UTC
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.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#698 - 2012-07-21 07:24:50 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So yes, there are quite a few cases when it's not convenient, or even not available at all. Why should the player who flies solo be at a severe disadvantage vs the player who flies with alts?


Why should the player who refuses to fly anything larger than a frigate be at a severe disadvantage compared to the player who flies a cruiser? Isn't that paying to win?



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?
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#699 - 2012-07-21 07:38:21 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
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.


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.

EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tasks which cannot be done through other ingame means, therefore putting players not using alts, at a disadvantage.


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.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#700 - 2012-07-21 07:38:36 UTC
malcovas Henderson wrote:
That is exactly what he is saying. 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.

EpicFailTroll wrote:
Of course I'm okay with this. I really don't understand though why you don't see the problem with alts, and how this is tied to P2W.


The Solo player is still at a disadvantage against the 3 friends. No difference in going against 3 alts. You cannot dislike one but not the other. to do that does not make sense


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.

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