These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Doc Severide
Doomheim
#781 - 2012-07-21 19:58:11 UTC
Xinivrae wrote:
...but there's also the person who's too lazy to grind the missions for the isk to buy...


Lazy? Whatta jerk.

Grinding like a fool to get paltry sums to do what I really want to do when I can buy a GTC and trade it for ISK?

This has NOTHING to do with being lazy and more to do with using a perfectly sanctioned mechanic created by CCP to get some fast ISK...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#782 - 2012-07-21 19:59:44 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
1. "You can assign them to tasks you couldn't realistically ask of a fellow corpmate …"

2. "The portion (tiny, probably) of the playerbase that would rather roleplay a single character does not have access to the same convenience…"

3. "After all, this is a roleplaying game, and players should be allowed to play a single role…"

4. "Ingame means could be developed for most of those: traffic info for Empire gates, Interbus hauling, black market haulers shopping for you in Empire... the afk isk grind would remain, though, which would only enhance the P2W issue."
Points 2 and 3 are still not tasks that require alts — they just refer back to the previous list and claim that they are problematic. Point 4 is still new mechanics, not alt-requiring tasks (in fact, being alt-requiring task would be contrary to their purpose). These are irrelevant and fail to answer the question.

Point 1 is still not something that can only be done with alts, no matter how much you bold it. You can ask corpmates (or others) to perform those tasks. I know this because I have seen it on numerous occasions. In fact, entire third-party services are available to do some of those things, which blows your entire point out of the water.

Quote:
But they can't, because given equal numbers
…you're back to comparing option 1 with option 2 and ignoring option 3. You're describing a choice not to get advantages to the choice of doing so. Again, this has nothing to do with alts — alts could be substituted for any of the other options without altering the issue. Again, bolding it doesn't change this simple fact.

The advantage you're talking about is still numbers, not alts. That advantage can be had or can be compensated for in numerous ways. Your bullheaded insistence that one team simply must not be allowed to choose doesn't change the fact that they can and that a number of options are available.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#783 - 2012-07-21 20:02:02 UTC
Mechael wrote:
And yet paying still does provide an advantage.
…but since that advantage can be had in numerous other ways, it's not an advantage that you have to pay for, thus no P2W.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#784 - 2012-07-21 20:03:19 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
OMG there is so much stupid in this thread.

No Plex are not and never have been PTW. Pay to win mean specifically to spend Real life money to have the game maker spawn **** into existence that would exist otherwise.

Everything involved in the Plex system (well except for Arum which is why we had a massive riot last yer) is generated in game via game mechanics. If you buy a plex it doesn't automatically convert into ISK, You have to sell it to someone who generated their isk using existing game mechanics.


Here's a way to think about it , Imaging you have a buddy who plays EVE. He doesn't have a lot of money but he does have a lot of free time while you may have plenty of money but you lack free time, So you and your buddy come to an arrangement where You pay for his account while he gives you a portion of the isk he earns while you are at work so that when you are able to get online you don't have to spend your limited time grinding isk.

Plex just abstracts that so that you can reach such an arrangement with complete strangers.

Another important difference between P2W and the plex system is their purpose in existence. Plex was introduced originally to combat the problem of 3rd party RMT while P2W is implemented specifically to generate additional revenue for the company, Consider the difference between the plex for isk system and the Plex for Aurum systems.

In the case of a plex for isk, Until such time as someone applies the time in that plex to an account that plex actually represents a liability on CCP's balance book. Because eventually that plex will be used by someone to pay their subscription fee for a month. Their price is also determined by the supply and demand. Notice that in no part of the process of trading for Plex does anyone bypass the in game mechanics for generating isk or acquiring the items said isk can buy.

Contast this with the Plex for Aurum system where if you convert a plex to Aurum CCP does magic an item into existence (Aurum) as well as all the items in the form of our character customization (outfits and monocles)

See the difference? The normal mechanics of the game are not bypassed by the plex system.

Character sales work the same. If you decide you want to buy a Titan pilot you can't just spec one out and have one poof into existence you have to find one that someone spent the time training and hope that it matches your specifications. If you want an Avatar pilot but the only thing for sale is a Erubus pilot you are **** out of luck.

The reason Plex is not Pay to Win is because everything involved in the transaction are things acquirable via normal game play that is available to all subscribers evenly. This is unlike Freemium games such are WOT where the expenditure of real life cash buys objects and abilities that can not be obtained via normal game play.

Plex is also limited by the in-game market, If that theoretical rich kid decided to drop 100 grand on plex to outfit his alliance the very act of doing so would reduce the isk value of those plex as the demand for plex wouldn't have changed while there would then be a surplus of supply.

And no having alts is not pay to win either whether they are spies or boosters or any other purpose because they don't represent something that can only be purchased with RL cash, because anything that can be done by an alt is something that could be accomplished by a another player.



You missed something key, here. There PLEX item itself is worth ISK and is magicked into the game whenever someone pays CCP. That it is a liability until used is both irrelevant and a fallacy. Whether someone uses it or not, CCP still gets the money. There could be a million of them backed up in the EVE markets, and it wouldn't matter because they've all already been paid bought and paid for. In reality, CCP makes extra money from un-used PLEXes, because all that really means is that more subscription time has been purchased than has been applied. People are paying them for stuff that they're not even using. And it's still totally irrelevent to whether or not this is a pay to win mechanic, because even if PLEX were somehow not magicked into the game, the fact remains that you can still get an in-game thing with real money.

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

Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#785 - 2012-07-21 20:03:42 UTC
How can this still be going when both sides have accepted that the other is using a different, and almost as valid, definition?

Just accept that the other person will never be convinced that your definition is right, and move on already. Please.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#786 - 2012-07-21 20:04:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
And yet paying still does provide an advantage.
…but since that advantage can be had in numerous other ways, it's not an advantage that you have to pay for, thus no P2W.


But it is an advantage that you can pay for, and thus p2w.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#787 - 2012-07-21 20:06:24 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
And yet paying still does provide an advantage.
…but since that advantage can be had in numerous other ways, it's not an advantage that you have to pay for, thus no P2W.


But it is an advantage that you can pay for, and thus p2w.


Everyone can earn the isk so its not like some have some sort of advantage another group dont have access to.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#788 - 2012-07-21 20:07:59 UTC
Mechael wrote:
But it is an advantage that you can pay for, and thus p2w.
…except that it doesn't lead to any “win” because the same advantage is available to those you're competing against, and they didn't pay for it.

It's very easy:

One team consists of 10 pilots flying an assortment of ships.
The other team consists of 10 pilots flying the same assortment of ships.

Which of these two teams have paid for anything? Which of these two teams will win?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#789 - 2012-07-21 20:08:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
And yet paying still does provide an advantage.
…but since that advantage can be had in numerous other ways, it's not an advantage that you have to pay for, thus no P2W.


But it is an advantage that you can pay for, and thus p2w.


Everyone can earn the isk so its not like some have some sort of advantage another group dont have access to.


But it's still an advantage that you pay for. Not only that, but paying for it gets you the advantage more quickly than earning it in game does (unless you're making more isk/time than you get by spending a few minutes on the website making the purchase) which is a unique advantage in and of itself.

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

Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#790 - 2012-07-21 20:10:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
But it is an advantage that you can pay for, and thus p2w.
…except that it doesn't lead to any “win” because the same advantage is available to those you're competing against, and they didn't pay for it.

It's very easy:

One team consists of 10 pilots flying an assortment of ships.
The other team consists of 10 pilots flying the same assortment of ships.

Which of these two teams have paid for anything? Which of these two teams will win?


Put that way, unique golden ammo doesn't lead to a win either. Because of all of the other variables. Probability goes right out the window as irrelevant.

It's really not that way.

You can magic a very valuable thing into the game with real money. You can't do that without real money.

Also, you're not taking into account that EVE takes place over time. Over time, one team generates ISK for replacing losses etc purely via in-game means. The other team generates just as much ISK via in-game means, but also purchases ISK via PLEX. Team B can now replace more losses more quickly than team A. Unique advantage that can only be had with real money.

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

Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#791 - 2012-07-21 20:11:38 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:


But they can't, because given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, which side will win, the one using alts, or the one without?


Do skill and equipment, given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, one with alts, one without, successfully trump or at least give the same advantage as offgrid boosting alts, falcon alts, static scout alts?





You have to include the alts in the numbers. If you have two teams one that has 8 actual players and 1 alt neurtal scout an 1 alt off grid booster compared to a team that has 10 actual players including an out of corp scout and an off grid booster (believe it or not people do fly T3 boosters in fleets as their mains) be edge would actually go to the team with 10 real players because non of them would be having to switch their attention between different accounts.

Tell me which do you really think is more effective, a Falcon played by someone who's having to also manage another ship in the fight a Falcon played by a player who's only paying attention to managing his jams?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#792 - 2012-07-21 20:13:26 UTC
Mechael wrote:


But it's still an advantage that you pay for. Not only that, but paying for it gets you the advantage more quickly than earning it in game does (unless you're making more isk/time than you get by spending a few minutes on the website making the purchase) which is a unique advantage in and of itself.


If some fool wants to pay for something I get for free so be it. I dont see any advantage they can buy that I cant get for free.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#793 - 2012-07-21 20:14:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mechael wrote:
Put that way, unique golden ammo doesn't lead to a win either.
Sure it does, because the team that doesn't pay can't have it. It's an advantage that isn't available to those who don't pay. The scenario I set up is two teams getting the same advantages in different ways — one paying for it and one without paying for it.

So again, tell me: of the two teams I listed, which one has paid, and which one will win?

Quote:
You can magic a very valuable thing into the game with real money.
You can magic valuable things into the game without real money too.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#794 - 2012-07-21 20:14:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:


But it's still an advantage that you pay for. Not only that, but paying for it gets you the advantage more quickly than earning it in game does (unless you're making more isk/time than you get by spending a few minutes on the website making the purchase) which is a unique advantage in and of itself.


If some fool wants to pay for something I get for free so be it. I dont see any advantage they can buy that I cant get for free.


Time, just to name the most obvious one.

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

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#795 - 2012-07-21 20:16:19 UTC
Mechael wrote:


Time, just to name the most obvious one.


I made 2 billion isk while at work not playing EVE today.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#796 - 2012-07-21 20:17:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Time, just to name the most obvious one.


I made 2 billion isk while at work not playing EVE today.


And you could have made 2.5billion if you had spent the extra 2 minutes to purchase a PLEX.

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

EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#797 - 2012-07-21 20:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Tippia wrote:

Point 1 is still not something that can only be done with alts, no matter how much you bold it. You can ask corpmates (or others) to perform those tasks. I know this because I have seen it on numerous occasions. In fact, entire third-party services are available to do some of those things, which blows your entire point out of the water.


But you cannot realistically ask this of other people. Because they're boring and afk. That's why people use alts.

Also, the case studied is the the case of a solo player not using alts(which are a metagame, not ingame choice). A solo player as in, a player who wants to do stuff on his own, being at a disadvantage vs an alt-funding player.

There would of course be not problem, if such third-party services were ran also -not only- by npc entities: "Ingame means could be developed for most of those: traffic info for Empire gates, Interbus hauling, black market haulers shopping for you in Empire"

Tippia wrote:
Quote:
But they can't, because given equal numbers
…you're back to comparing option 1 with option 2 and ignoring option 3. You're describing a choice not to get advantages to the choice of doing so. Again, this has nothing to do with alts — alts could be substituted for any of the other options without altering the issue. Again, bolding it doesn't change this simple fact.

The advantage you're talking about is still numbers, not alts. That advantage can be had or can be compensated for in numerous ways. Your bullheaded insistence that one team simply must not be allowed to choose doesn't change the fact that they can and that a number of options are available.


Your option 3 does not exist in this scenario:

Given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, which side will win, the one using alts, or the one without?

Do skill and equipment, given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, one with alts, one without, successfully trump or at least give the same advantage as offgrid boosting alts, falcon alts, static scout alts?


What option exist for the alt-less side, to even the playfield? For an equal number of equally skilled players on each side, that is all their friends are there, no more numbers available, as often happens.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#798 - 2012-07-21 20:19:25 UTC
Mechael wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Time, just to name the most obvious one.


I made 2 billion isk while at work not playing EVE today.


And you could have made 2.5billion if you had spent the extra 2 minutes to purchase a PLEX.


Why? I just wait for other people to buy a PLEX and spend it on my goods.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#799 - 2012-07-21 20:22:12 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:


Time, just to name the most obvious one.


I made 2 billion isk while at work not playing EVE today.


And you could have made 2.5billion if you had spent the extra 2 minutes to purchase a PLEX.


Why? I just wait for other people to buy a PLEX and spend it on my goods.


Because you can make even more money even more quickly buy buying PLEX for real money. Isn't that obvious?

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

EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#800 - 2012-07-21 20:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
Skex Relbore wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:


But they can't, because given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, which side will win, the one using alts, or the one without?


Do skill and equipment, given equal numbers of equally skilled players on each side, one with alts, one without, successfully trump or at least give the same advantage as offgrid boosting alts, falcon alts, static scout alts?





You have to include the alts in the numbers. If you have two teams one that has 8 actual players and 1 alt neurtal scout an 1 alt off grid booster compared to a team that has 10 actual players including an out of corp scout and an off grid booster (believe it or not people do fly T3 boosters in fleets as their mains) be edge would actually go to the team with 10 real players because non of them would be having to switch their attention between different accounts.

Tell me which do you really think is more effective, a Falcon played by someone who's having to also manage another ship in the fight a Falcon played by a player who's only paying attention to managing his jams?


It's like you do it on purpose, comparing an equal number of characters ingame, while I'm comparing an equal number of RL players.

Team A and Team B are each made of 10 players
5 of team B players control 3 alts each moreover, 5 of those 10 supplementary alts are static scouts + offgrid booster, the other 5 are fighting ships requiring little micro (snipers for example, warp in lock all and change target when it's down)
Team A has no alts, but has a fleet of 30 FRIENDS ships coming to help...which will be spotted by the static alts

Guess who will do the most damage, then break off and dock?

Team A had 10 RL players, 10 ingame characters
Team B had 10 RL players, 20 ingame characters