These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Renan Ruivo
Forcas armadas
Brave Collective
#901 - 2012-07-21 21:51:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:



You're only AFK until you see something happen on the client of the static scout alt, then you interact with it.

But you had to be AFK from it waiting for something to happen first, before, while doing other things, usually related to isk. And that's why not a player controlling a single-character would do it, it's boring most of the time and brings no revenue.


While you are fiddiling with ammo and picking your next rat to die I will sneek through past your alt scout because you are distracted and not paying attention. This is the titanic flaw in your system and why any alliance woth their salt does not use this kind of intel system.


Any alliance worth their salt uses intel channels with multiple people in it that follow a strict (somewhat) reporting lingo to report the presence of a hostile (read: non-blue) in a given system. Some of those people are only passing by when they give the report, while others have dedicated static scouts on secondary monitors while they do something else with their main on the primary monitor screen.

The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#902 - 2012-07-21 21:52:39 UTC
Quote:
Right now, RMT is just something that we have to deal with. It's not something that I believe that we should accept, though.


So if I give my money to CCP, it's now RMT....


SmileSmileSmile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Skex Relbore
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#903 - 2012-07-21 21:52:55 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

They use your system. Its so bad that my corp would wander through their space and never get reported.


I assure you all the use of static alts scouts I've seen ingame has provided a huge advantage to those corps I've been in. Mostly WH corps, though. Their smaller side tends to eliminate sloppiness esting upon others' shoulders, as happens sometimes in null.



WH are even worse with that system because you can only find people with the D-scanner or sitting on the WH exit watching for people using the overview to try and catch them before the cloak up/warp off. Neither of these things can be done very well while AFK.



You're only AFK until you see something happen on the client of the static scout alt, then you interact with it.

But you had to be AFK from it waiting for something to happen first, before, while doing other things, usually related to isk. And that's why not a player controlling a single-character would do it, it's boring most of the time and brings no revenue.


As usual you prove that you have clue what you are talking about. That's not an AFK scout. That's a scout that you're paying half attention to and will never be as effective as a scout with an actual player running it. Because if you are splitting your attention you will be less affective than the person who is not.

BTW so you understand just how stupid your argument is. AFK Means AWAY FROM KEYBOARD as in the games sitting there running while your in the kitchen making a sandwich or in the bathroom taking a dump or off getting freaky with your significant other.

Now is using an alt scout useful? Sure but it isn't any more useful than having a real person doing that same role in fact it's actually less so because it means you can't pay the same level of attention that a dedicated player could. Thus you miss that 30 man gang rolling down the pipe to drop on your head because you were tunnel visioned on getting that kill while a real player would have their attention on doing the job of a scout.

There isn't a single role that you can describe where having an alt doing it is more effective than having an actual player doing that job would be.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#904 - 2012-07-21 21:54:00 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
What I'm talking about is real money affecting the game in an unacceptable manner. For me, unacceptable is anything beyond a basic admittance fee.
…and the question remains: how is getting no particular advantage over those who don't pay “unacceptable”?

Quote:
Anyway, my problem is that you can spend real money beyond a base admittance fee in order to alter the game. In EVE, this happens through alts and PLEX.
Neither alter the game. One is just another character, which is what the game is built to have in it, and the other is an exquisitely economy-neutral financial instrument.


Every new character alters the balance of the game, for the simple reason that every new character affects the game. I'm not talking about ship stats, I'm talking about the balance of in-game power, which comes in the form of many things from politics to ISK to ships to other assets, and even right down to the nitty gritty of the mindset of the players. One form that it should not ever come from is real money.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#905 - 2012-07-21 21:54:09 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:


Big flashy on-screen visual effects are so hard to miss.

Did you train Metal Gear Solid IV right after Courage Wolf V?


Are you seriously saying that you have set every single neutral player to flashyredin local? I dont think this is even possible.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#906 - 2012-07-21 21:55:08 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Quote:
Right now, RMT is just something that we have to deal with. It's not something that I believe that we should accept, though.


So if I give my money to CCP, it's now RMT....


SmileSmileSmile




Yep. Always has been. You are trading with real money, no? And this trade is affecting the game. PLEX is just a CCP sanctioned form of RMT.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#907 - 2012-07-21 21:55:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Alas! the issue is far more complex
People that choose to have an advantage having an advantage over those who choose not to have an advantage is not a complex issue. It's just how they've chosen to play the game.

It's actually rather the opposite of “an issue” — call it a blessing if you like — that the game allows for such freedom of choice. It's particularly nice how there are so many different advantages to choose from, if you choose to go beyond “none”.



I agree. You need to invest in alts, if you want to have the same advantage as people who already have multiple accounts. This goes beyond the scope of ingame tools, which cannot provide the same service.

And since alts are tied to RL money, the issue of P2W springs forth to mind, for anybody with a modicum of common sense.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#908 - 2012-07-21 21:55:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:


Big flashy on-screen visual effects are so hard to miss.

Did you train Metal Gear Solid IV right after Courage Wolf V?


Are you seriously saying that you have set every single neutral player to flashyredin local? I dont think this is even possible.


Can't you see and hear gate activations?

Can't you see a WH fire?
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#909 - 2012-07-21 21:56:24 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:

Now is using an alt scout useful? Sure but it isn't any more useful than having a real person doing that same role in fact it's actually less so because it means you can't pay the same level of attention that a dedicated player could. Thus you miss that 30 man gang rolling down the pipe to drop on your head because you were tunnel visioned on getting that kill while a real player would have their attention on doing the job of a scout.

There isn't a single role that you can describe where having an alt doing it is more effective than having an actual player doing that job would be.


Except there's nothing stopping every player in the game from having alts.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#910 - 2012-07-21 21:56:35 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


I realize that you are uncomfortable with EVE being a bit more sophisticated than most other games. We have multiple ways to gain an advantage of other players, and many more ways to end up at a disadvantage to other players.

This is how EVE is played, on many, many levels.

If a more simplistic game is more your taste that's fine, but don't complain about the basic complex nature of the game that you voluntarily chose to play.


Why did you think I was complaining about the complexity of EVE? It seems to me like I was simply complaining about the effect of real money on the game, beyond the base admittance fee which is merely tolerated as opposed to accepted.


Because the fact that real money being spent, or it's equivalent value in ISK being spent, is part of the complexity of EVE.

They are merely two equal paths to the same goal, one which more simplistic games do not have.

You don't understand this, and are therefore uncomfortable with it.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#911 - 2012-07-21 21:58:11 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Skex Relbore wrote:

Now is using an alt scout useful? Sure but it isn't any more useful than having a real person doing that same role in fact it's actually less so because it means you can't pay the same level of attention that a dedicated player could. Thus you miss that 30 man gang rolling down the pipe to drop on your head because you were tunnel visioned on getting that kill while a real player would have their attention on doing the job of a scout.

There isn't a single role that you can describe where having an alt doing it is more effective than having an actual player doing that job would be.


Except there's nothing stopping every player in the game from having alts.


If they so desire, quite correct... whether they choose to spend ISK or cash to achieve this.

You have just lost, by the way.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#912 - 2012-07-21 21:58:23 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
EpicFailTroll wrote:


Can't you see and hear gate activations?

Can't you see a WH fire?


Good luck locking down 50 systems with from 2 to 5 gates each using alts on all of themLol
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#913 - 2012-07-21 21:59:41 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Alas! the issue is far more complex
People that choose to have an advantage having an advantage over those who choose not to have an advantage is not a complex issue. It's just how they've chosen to play the game.

It's actually rather the opposite of “an issue” — call it a blessing if you like — that the game allows for such freedom of choice. It's particularly nice how there are so many different advantages to choose from, if you choose to go beyond “none”.



I agree. You need to invest in alts, if you want to have the same advantage as people who already have multiple accounts. This goes beyond the scope of ingame tools, which cannot provide the same service.

And since alts are tied to RL money, the issue of P2W springs forth to mind, for anybody with a modicum of common sense.


And yet again, highlighting where you fail.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#914 - 2012-07-21 22:00:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Mechael wrote:
Every new character alters the balance of the game, for the simple reason that every new character affects the game.
…but they alter the game by playing it, not by entering it and certainly not by paying for it. And more to the point, you're being immensely sloppy with the word “balance” here, just like you are with the concept of “P2W”.

Real money does not change this balance of power. Players playing the game does. No amount of injected cash would have even the tiniest effect unless players playing the game made it happen. If you choose to define this chain of events as “P2W”, you've made the concept completely meaningless. You're back to EFT's failed reasoning about how “number = payment”, at which point every multiplayer game in the world is P2W and to the point where the two are synonyms — you can no longer use P2W to make any differentiation as far as how cash affects a game.

You are making “pay to play” mean “pay to win”, at which point we might as well just call it “pay to play” since that's all it is.

…and since characters can be created without paying anything, the whole notion that it's tied to payment to begin with is inherently false.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#915 - 2012-07-21 22:00:39 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


I realize that you are uncomfortable with EVE being a bit more sophisticated than most other games. We have multiple ways to gain an advantage of other players, and many more ways to end up at a disadvantage to other players.

This is how EVE is played, on many, many levels.

If a more simplistic game is more your taste that's fine, but don't complain about the basic complex nature of the game that you voluntarily chose to play.


Why did you think I was complaining about the complexity of EVE? It seems to me like I was simply complaining about the effect of real money on the game, beyond the base admittance fee which is merely tolerated as opposed to accepted.


Because the fact that real money being spent, or it's equivalent value in ISK being spent, is part of the complexity of EVE.

They are merely two equal paths to the same goal, one which more simplistic games do not have.

You don't understand this, and are therefore uncomfortable with it.


RMT is bad for reasons other than complexity.

Ranger1 wrote:
If they so desire, quite correct... whether they choose to spend ISK or cash to achieve this.

You have just lost, by the way.


Lost what, exactly? I wasn't aware I was even putting much of anything on the line, here ... just explaining how I see things.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#916 - 2012-07-21 22:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Mechael wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


I realize that you are uncomfortable with EVE being a bit more sophisticated than most other games. We have multiple ways to gain an advantage of other players, and many more ways to end up at a disadvantage to other players.

This is how EVE is played, on many, many levels.

If a more simplistic game is more your taste that's fine, but don't complain about the basic complex nature of the game that you voluntarily chose to play.


Why did you think I was complaining about the complexity of EVE? It seems to me like I was simply complaining about the effect of real money on the game, beyond the base admittance fee which is merely tolerated as opposed to accepted.


Because the fact that real money being spent, or it's equivalent value in ISK being spent, is part of the complexity of EVE.

They are merely two equal paths to the same goal, one which more simplistic games do not have.

You don't understand this, and are therefore uncomfortable with it.


RMT is bad for reasons other than complexity.

Ranger1 wrote:
If they so desire, quite correct... whether they choose to spend ISK or cash to achieve this.

You have just lost, by the way.


Lost what, exactly? I wasn't aware I was even putting much of anything on the line, here ... just explaining how I see things.


It's not RMT, by any practical definition, when the only money trading hands is for game time.

By lost I was referring to the debate. It was at the point where you stated that there was nothing at all stopping any player in game from using an alt account.

If alt accounts are an advantage, and anyone can obtain that advantage, then it is no longer an unfair advantage... merely an option. It's not really any different from taking ISK and purchasing better equipment than the other player. It's rather the point of the game.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#917 - 2012-07-21 22:10:53 UTC  |  Edited by: EpicFailTroll
baltec1 wrote:

Good luck locking down 50 systems with from 2 to 5 gates each using alts on all of themLol


Which part of key gates don't you understand?

Do you need to watch every irrelevant, less-travelled gates?

Do you need to watch 50 systems just to have safety in a few?


Tippia wrote:
Mechael wrote:
Every new character alters the balance of the game, for the simple reason that every new character affects the game.
…but they alter the game by playing it, not by entering it and certainly not by paying for it. And more to the point, you're being immensely sloppy with the word “balance” here, just like you are with the concept of “P2W”.

Real money does not change this balance of power. Players playing the game does. No amount of injected cash would have even the tiniest effect unless players playing the game made it happen. If you choose to define this chain of events as “P2W”, you've made the concept completely meaningless. You're back to EFT's failed reasoning about how “number = payment”, at which point every multiplayer game in the world is P2W and to the point where the two are synonyms — you can no longer use P2W to make any differentiation as far as how cash affects a game.

You are making “pay to play” mean “pay to win”, at which point we might as well just call it “pay to play” since that's all it is.

…and since characters can be created without paying anything, the whole notion that it's tied to payment to begin with is inherently false.



Characters alter the game. A single player with 3 alts will have potentially thrice the influence a player with a single character has.
No multiplayer game that is twitch-based and requires constant input could be said to be P2W, in your bizarre reasoning, since you can't control several characters efficiently at once. In EvE, which isn't twitch-based, you can -and must, if you wish to be on an even playfield-.

But it's tied to payments, because that PLEX you buy with isk, someone has bought with RL money. As for the complexity of this issue, see there.

And here, why some people really think that EvE is Free-to-Play
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#918 - 2012-07-21 22:15:20 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
It's not RMT, by any practical definition, when the only money trading hands is for game time.


Well, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by RMT either, then. I'm talking about selling virtual goods or currency for real money. Now, while I can see a perspective that selling additional game time is no different than selling the basic entry fee for the game, there are some slight differences here that at least raise some questions. With PLEX, for example, it's now possible for players to buy extra game time. That is, game time that never actually gets used. Every unspent PLEX is extra profit for CCP. This further serves to call into question the fact that players are encouraged to sell them for ISK. Even on the surface it's presented as spending real money to get ISK, and then justified by saying that it's better than external RMT because you're paying for someone else's game time. It's actually a very nice system considering it combats two birds with one stone: it hits RMTers, and it also allows you to pay for your "friends" (whether they're real friends or just friends because hey, we all love EVE,) accounts without putting your credit card anywhere within their reach.

Now, I do agree that PLEX is a better system than letting external RMT run rampant. Does this make it a good system, though? Sure, it's an improvement ... but it's kind of like elevating something from a turd to a stain. It's still a form of buying something in-game with real money. As it stands, the only area where I personally can tolerate making an exception to the "no real-world currency for in-game anything" rule is with a base admittance fee. PLEX and Alts are both arguably more than a simple base admittance fee.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#919 - 2012-07-21 22:20:17 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
It's not RMT, by any practical definition, when the only money trading hands is for game time.


Well, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by RMT either, then. I'm talking about selling virtual goods or currency for real money. Now, while I can see a perspective that selling additional game time is no different than selling the basic entry fee for the game, there are some slight differences here that at least raise some questions. With PLEX, for example, it's now possible for players to buy extra game time. That is, game time that never actually gets used. Every unspent PLEX is extra profit for CCP. This further serves to call into question the fact that players are encouraged to sell them for ISK. Even on the surface it's presented as spending real money to get ISK, and then justified by saying that it's better than external RMT because you're paying for someone else's game time. It's actually a very nice system considering it combats two birds with one stone: it hits RMTers, and it also allows you to pay for your "friends" (whether they're real friends or just friends because hey, we all love EVE,) accounts without putting your credit card anywhere within their reach.

Now, I do agree that PLEX is a better system than letting external RMT run rampant. Does this make it a good system, though? Sure, it's an improvement ... but it's kind of like elevating something from a turd to a stain. It's still a form of buying something in-game with real money. As it stands, the only area where I personally can tolerate making an exception to the "no real-world currency for in-game anything" rule is with a base admittance fee. PLEX and Alts are both arguably more than a simple base admittance fee.

So again, what advantage are you obtaining with cash that I can't just as easily obtain with ISK if I desire?

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#920 - 2012-07-21 22:20:28 UTC
Mechael wrote:
With PLEX, for example, it's now possible for players to buy extra game time. That is, game time that never actually gets used. Every unspent PLEX is extra profit for CCP.
Not quite. Every unspent PLEX is a lingering liability in their books for services bought but not rendered. That's part of why they tried to create this big honking PLEX sink that never really took off — because it would remove all that liability and make it easier to get more funding from investors.