These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#81 - 2012-07-16 19:36:13 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Don't interrupt Tippia's wishful thinking with your facts. He put years of effort into appearing smart in front of this forum crowd and this sure as hell isn't going to change today.

He is basically saying that even though someone may counter you with 6 ships instead of 1 at the same time, it is remotely possible that your opponent will get a heart attack behind his pc, or someone may ring at his door, or any other imaginably case in which you won't lose.

If that happens in 1 of 10 million cases, Tippia is happy to see his theory proven.

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#82 - 2012-07-16 19:38:07 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So when a player running multiple alts engages a player running a single character, the single character player has the same amount of characters as the player running multiple characters?
When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no “pay to win”.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#83 - 2012-07-16 19:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So when a player running multiple alts engages a player running a single character, the single character player has the same amount of characters as the player running multiple characters?
When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no “pay to win”.


"Not a factor" is the opposite of "You can simply get more people/characters to help you out". I think you don't know what a factor is.

By your definition, no game is "Pay to win". Call it "Pay to have an advantage" then. In either case, it describes Eve without objection.

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#84 - 2012-07-16 19:43:58 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
"Not a factor" is the opposite of "You can simply get more people to help you out". I don't think you know what a factor is.
Good thing, then, that I didn't put those two in opposition.

I didn't do it because it would be complete nonsense — “not a factor” is the opposite of “is a factor”, whereas the opposite of “you can simply get more people to help out” is “you can't simply get more people to help out”.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#85 - 2012-07-16 19:45:27 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So when a player running multiple alts engages a player running a single character, the single character player has the same amount of characters as the player running multiple characters?
When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no “pay to win”.


Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run. Payment is not a factor...

Then those accounts and computers are free! Isn't this neat? Thanks Tippia!


"Herp derp it's an mmo just get friends lol u suck at social skills no-life casual gamer that only plays on evenings just brings friends to the engagements and then the multiboxer brings his friends who may or may not multibox then everyone brings friends who may or may not multibox then in the end it's all a matter of who can field the most alts... well anyway you're just a friendless no-lifer unsociallyskilled casual entitled highsec dweller lol"
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#86 - 2012-07-16 19:48:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DrSmegma wrote:
"Not a factor" is the opposite of "You can simply get more people to help you out". I don't think you know what a factor is.
Good thing, then, that I didn't put those two in opposition.

I didn't do it because it would be complete nonsense — “not a factor” is the opposite of “is a factor”, whereas the opposite of “you can simply get more people to help out” is “you can't simply get more people to help out”.


You're lucky that most of the people on this forum, yourself included, don't have the conversational skills to identify your despair of trying to support your initial point.

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#87 - 2012-07-16 19:49:48 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
So when a player running multiple alts engages a player running a single character, the single character player has the same amount of characters as the player running multiple characters?
When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no “pay to win”.


Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run. Payment is not a factor...

Then those accounts and computers are free!


Yea I came to that conclusion too. Big smile

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#88 - 2012-07-16 19:52:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
If I am attacked by 5 characters played by 5 people, and attacked by 5 characters played by 1 person, there is no difference other than the 1 person has a decent setup. I am still dead either way (outside of extreme situations).

Anyway, having multiple accounts is still not pay to win because you can have them while only paying RL monies for one of them (just like everything else in this game). That is the whole point of PLEX.

Edit: also the computers used to run the client is not a factor, as it is not itself part of the game nor controllable by CCP.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#89 - 2012-07-16 19:53:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run.
…or by having other characters help him out, for which he pays nothing. So yes, payment is not a factor.

You paying a wad of cash does not mean you will win anything.

You're trying to argue that numbers ≡ payment. The problem with that argument is that it makes P2W a completely useless term because it makes all multiplayer games ever P2W. You are basically arguing that Quake is P2W.

The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying. Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. Thus there is no P2W. You can play as stupid as you like about it, but that just makes you seem stupid (surprise!).
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#90 - 2012-07-16 19:56:09 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run.
…or by having other characters help him out, for which he pays nothing. So yes, payment is not a factor.

You paying a wad of cash does not mean you will win anything.



Sure, buying 99% of the tickets of a lottery doesn't garantee that you win either.. but you've got to be really, really, really dense to refuse to acknowledge the obvious advantage.

Tippia wrote:
You're trying to argue that numbers ≡ payment. The problem with that argument is that it makes P2W a completely useless term because it makes all multiplayer games ever P2W. You are basically arguing that Quake is P2W.

The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying. Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. Thus there is no P2W. You can play as stupid as you like about it, but that just makes you seem stupid (surprise!).


Yes, most games ARE pay to win. Surpriiiihise.

"The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying."
...except of being able to run multiple accounts

"Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. "
...factor. Look it up.

I mean srsly. Do you even still think about the bullshit you're trying to sell as 'smart' here?

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#91 - 2012-07-16 20:02:46 UTC
DrSmegma wrote:
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run.
…or by having other characters help him out, for which he pays nothing. So yes, payment is not a factor.

You paying a wad of cash does not mean you will win anything.



Sure, buying 99% of the tickets of a lottery doesn't garantee that you win either.. but you've got to be really, really, really dense to refuse to acknowledge the obvious advantage.

Tippia wrote:
You're trying to argue that numbers ≡ payment. The problem with that argument is that it makes P2W a completely useless term because it makes all multiplayer games ever P2W. You are basically arguing that Quake is P2W.

The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying. Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. Thus there is no P2W. You can play as stupid as you like about it, but that just makes you seem stupid (surprise!).


Yes, most games ARE pay to win. Surpriiiihise.

"The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying."
...except of being able to run multiple accounts

"Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. "
...factor. Look it up.

The existence of an advantage does not mean something is pay to win. Its an advantage that cannot be gotten without paying.

There are people who play for free (RL money-wise), while others pay to get isk. Because of the duel nature of PLEX, it is not pay to win, and neither are owning multiple accounts (which can be free as well).
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#92 - 2012-07-16 20:09:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DrSmegma wrote:
Sure, buying 99% of the tickets of a lottery doesn't garantee that you win either.. but you've got to be really, really, really dense to refuse to acknowledge the obvious advantage.
…except that it's still not P2W — it's “pay to participate” and it applies equally to everyone involved. Your payment provides exactly as much win as someone else's payment.

Quote:
Yes, most games ARE pay to win. Surpriiiihise.
You should take that up with EFT, because he doesn't agree with you. He agrees with me.

Quote:
...except of being able to run multiple accounts
…which doesn't give you any advantage that can't be had without paying.

Quote:
...factor. Look it up.
I did. Now what? Payment still isn't a factor in winning.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#93 - 2012-07-16 20:10:40 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:

Anyway, having multiple accounts is still not pay to win because you can have them while only paying RL monies for one of them (just like everything else in this game). That is the whole point of PLEX.

Edit: also the computers used to run the client is not a factor, as it is not itself part of the game nor controllable by CCP.


You still have to buy them to activate them -> P2W.

Computers are a factor. Multiplayer games are designed so that lower ends comp can run them as well. It's also controllable by CCP, alts could be flagged together since they come from the same IP.


Fun fact: buffing alts are forbidden on DAOC private servers. Why is that?
Those silly mmo players, why can't they get friends to fight with them?
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#94 - 2012-07-16 20:10:48 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run.
…or by having other characters help him out, for which he pays nothing. So yes, payment is not a factor.

You paying a wad of cash does not mean you will win anything.

You're trying to argue that numbers ≡ payment. The problem with that argument is that it makes P2W a completely useless term because it makes all multiplayer games ever P2W. You are basically arguing that Quake is P2W.

The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying. Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. Thus there is no P2W. You can play as stupid as you like about it, but that just makes you seem stupid (surprise!).



But I had already addressed that point, that not all games are P2W, let me quote EFT:
"In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 Fx once and you're done.
Online alts really must be flagged ingame as belonging to the same player/IP. For now, they can be used to escape consequences and be cheesy as hell."


Funding multiple accounts (and even when you support them through transforming isk into plex, you still have to activate and BUY them at some point) will always give the upper hand in a engagement pitting the same number of players on each side. That is an absolute certainty.

But then again it's spaceships in space, normal laws don't apply it's scifi what was I thinking? Of course numbers don't mean anything! How could they in a game with wormholes and warpdrives? How silly I am.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#95 - 2012-07-16 20:11:51 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Nevermind, Tippia. I think it's funnier if I just let you continue your "life" like before. I mean it's not like you'd accept anything other than wishful thinking anyway - have you ever?

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2012-07-16 20:15:17 UTC
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But I had already addressed that point, that not all games are P2W, let me quote EFT:
…except that for your argument to hold true, you must strictly equate numbers with payment. Otherwise, it's not payment that is a factor, but numbers.

Numbers win in the scenarios you've presented — payment had nothing to do with it.

If you equate the two to make payment a factor, then guess what? All games are P2W because numbers (≡ payment) wins the day in all games. If you dissociate numbers from payment, then your scenarios no longer prove anything about P2W.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#97 - 2012-07-16 20:15:18 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DrSmegma wrote:
Sure, buying 99% of the tickets of a lottery doesn't garantee that you win either.. but you've got to be really, really, really dense to refuse to acknowledge the obvious advantage.
…except that it's still not P2W — it's “pay to participate” and it applies equally to everyone involved. Your payment provides exactly as much win as someone else's payment.


We're breaking new grounds here.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#98 - 2012-07-16 20:21:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Corina Jarr
Multiple accounts are not pay to win because those accounts can be free (including activation, which can be done via PLEX, ie free). End of arguments.

And Computers are not a factor because they are not part of the game. You might as well argue that having AC in your house makes you cooler and able to perform better, so that would be pay to win.
EpicFailTroll
Doomheim
#99 - 2012-07-16 20:22:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
EpicFailTroll wrote:
But I had already addressed that point, that not all games are P2W, let me quote EFT:
…except that for your argument to hold true, you must strictly equate numbers with payment. Otherwise, it's not payment that is a factor, but numbers.

Numbers win in the scenarios you've presented — payment had nothing to do with it.

If you equate the two to make payment a factor, then guess what? All games are P2W because numbers (≡ payment) wins the day in all games. If you dissociate numbers from payment, then your scenarios no longer prove anything about P2W.


Numbers stem from accounts which have to be paid and funded. That's called payment.

Not all games are P2W, because, as says EFT:
"In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 Fx once and you're done."


"Dissociating numbers from payment": what you really mean is, "bring more friends". But then those friends can multibox as well, and your opponents can do too.

It then all boils down to who can fund and field the most alts. But then again it's not P2W because you said so.
DrSmegma
Smegma United
#100 - 2012-07-16 20:23:30 UTC  |  Edited by: DrSmegma
Corina Jarr wrote:
Seems I'm being ignored...


Multiple accounts are not pay to win because those accounts can be free. End of arguments.


I think you're being ignored because nobody wants to touch your lack of understanding of the PLEX system with a 10 feet pole. But hey, I like wage slavery as much as you do, and it's not like you're giving your ISK to someone whose main advantage over you is to have more real cash than you - oh wait..

EDIT: Of course you could argue that it would be the same if you a friend and he said "I'll pay for your account and you give me 500m", but let's face it, that guy on the market isn't your friend and he isn't just doing you a favour, he's doing 20 people a favour and with the ISK he buys his next titan or outpost.

Now say again that he isn't gaining an advantage with his dollar and euros.

Eve too complicated? Try Astrum Regatta.