513 replies to this topic

[Antagonist]

cSand, on 24 June 2014 - 09:12 PM, said:

Hey, here's a newsflash

Pay some cash if you want the new shinies right away

IF you don't wanna pay, that's fine, but make sure you STFU and wait while the rest of who bankroll your f**king experience get rewarded (rightly so) for it

I'm a founder and this is my favorite post on this forum.

[Evax]

I hate to pay for things too. But, If nothing was offered for us to purchase or if the things offered were the same, then I don't think we would be here to argue this point. The game would have been cancelled long ago.

If you don't like what others have bought (i.e DragonSlayers, Clan Mechs, Gold Mechs) and you feel it is an unfair advantage, then this isn't the gaming environment for you.

I realize people love MechWarrior and want to play it. Without income this game will die. I would like to suggest that you go back to or try MW4:Mercs. It has plenty of mechs and weapons, all for you to purchase with in-game currency.

Edited by Evax, 25 June 2014 - 03:04 PM.

[AEgg]

Evax, on 25 June 2014 - 03:03 PM, said:

I hate to pay for things too. But, If nothing was offered for us to purchase or if the things offered were the same, then I don't think we would be here to argue this point. The game would have been cancelled long ago.

If you don't like what others have bought (i.e DragonSlayers, Clan Mechs, Gold Mechs) and you feel it is an unfair advantage, then this isn't the gaming environment for you.

I realize people love MechWarrior and want to play it. Without income this game will die. I would like to suggest that you go back to or try MW4:Mercs. It has plenty of mechs and weapons, all for you to purchase with in-game currency.

This isn't really a valid point. The most financially successful free to play games don't sell gameplay affecting content. So it's clearly possible to make as much or more by treating players better. That said, we had this argument two years ago, and we still have hero mechs. So there's little point in debating it further. PGI is committed to the awkward middle ground between truly free to play of games like LoL and outright pay to win like WoT.

[qki]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

There are two answers:

The first most likely scenario is that apparently player A and player B are not able to make good use of weapon Z, because if they were truly better with it, they would probably be using it.

The second is that it doesn't matter even if they are choosing not to use weapon Z despite being better with it. Player A and player B play use the style of gun that they use because that's what they like. They exist in the game representing weapon X, just like a multitude of other players who enjoy weapon X or weapon Y despite their inferiority to Z. As a result they fall in the ELO bracket they fall in. If they suddenly have access to X², they're a step ahead of the guys stuck with the choice between weapon X which they like, and weapon Z which they dislike despite its advantages.

You still haven't gotten away from a guy paying for an advantage, receiving it, and making use of it.

So, basically, what you are saying, is that Players A and B are deliberately using inferior weapons because they like them better (I'm cool with that), that they know their weapons are inferior (still cool), and that they still get upset when someone beats them because of it


waitwhat?

Let's try this example again, shall we.

Imagine there are two players. Player 1 is somewhat more skilled than player 2. There are also 3 weapons. A is better than B, and B is better than C. Simple enough?

Both players are using weapon C, but since 1 is better than 2, he wins - no surprises there. So now player 2 starts using weapon B. Player 1 is still more skilled, but weapon B is so much better than C, player 2 wins. Shame on player 1 for using the inferior weapon, and he's got no one to blame but himself. So he starts using weapon B as well, and starts winning again.
At this point, player 2 buys weapon D, which is better than B and C, but not better than A. And he beats player 1 again. Player 1 could win, if he was also using weapon D, but he can't, because he didn't pay for it.

See the problem?

[Atheus]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 June 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

I do not think that is the question at all. I think that is a clever equivocation you have developed to circumvent the fact that Clan mech is not automatically or even demonstrably superior to IS tech, as testified to by numerous players who remain content with IS.Having to work a little harder (or, God forbid, find some friends) in an IS mech takes the P2W concept and places it on a spectrum, where degrees matter. And judging from the responses from the community, I think people are satisfied to the degree that P2W has been deferred.

And please, for the love of all that is good and holy, do not even mention "appeal to the masses" logical fallacy. That does not apply in a customer satisfaction situation. In customer satisfaction, if the majority is pleased with a policy, the company will maintain said policy.

But that's exactly what you have done. You appealed to the masses without producing any evidence to support your claim of high customer satisfaction. You may be right that of the players who are still playing they generally approve of PGI's P2W habit, but how has the player population changed since they announced the Clan pack back in 2013? I don't know for certain, but I do know that my friends list that goes back to 2012 is a ghost town.

If players didn't approve, they would be likely to leave or make themselves scarce, right? You mention that there is a spectrum of P2W, but take a good look through this thread. Players inspired to comment can't even acknowledge that MWO is on that spectrum. These players aren't making a sober analysis of the P2W situation and deciding that it's at an acceptable level, they're flat out denying it even applies. With that level of self-deception, there is no way to have a useful conversation.

[Atheus]

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

So, basically, what you are saying, is that Players A and B are deliberately using inferior weapons because they like them better (I'm cool with that), that they know their weapons are inferior (still cool), and that they still get upset when someone beats them because of it


waitwhat?

Uh... waitwhat? That's my line. No. They get upset when someone beats them with the upgraded version of their weapon that they would choose if the upgraded cash-exclusive version of the weapon they like. It leaves them wonder how it would have gone down if the guy who beat them didn't have better lasers than their lasers.

[qki]

So in other words, they expect a player to follow a made-up, nonexistent rule?

Remember - weapon A is still there, available to all players. Player 1 doesn't have to use weapon D to beat player 2 - he can use weapon A.
Player 2 didn't have to use weapon D either - he could go straight to using A, and then player 2 wouldn't be able to win any other way than by using weapon A - not even if he bought weapon D.


So who is using a double standard now? If you deliberately use a weapon that you know is inferior, because you are having more fun with it - so be it. But you cannot do that without accepting that other players are free to use the more powerful weapons leaving you at a disadvantage.

As long as there is no premium weapon E, which is even better than A, all is right with the world.
If there was a weapon E, then no matter how good a player got with weapon A, he woudn't be able to perform as well as if he was using the premium weapon E,a nd that would be a problem.

But there is no weapon E,

Edited by qki, 25 June 2014 - 03:28 PM.

[Sjorpha]

There seems to be some confusion about what pay to win means. To me it means that the highest tier of play requires a cash investment. So it just comes down to whether the competitive meta consists of free or paid stuff.

Looking at tournament streams, clan test streams and other data it seems clear to me that the dragon slayer and ember crosses the line while the clan mechs still being under evaluation but with the timber wolf looking like a possible culprit.

On the other hand I'm not convinced it is a big problem, not many people play at that level and the ones who do are generally prepared to pay up. The free choices are competitive enough at lower tiers of play so you don't have to feel too left behind if you play for free.

I'm a bit baffled by the level of vitriol poured over the people expressing concerns about p2w and balance issues, they may be right or wrong but feedback both negative and positive are always good. No need to be so hostile. In this thread for example I think antheus argument was quite valid from the point of view he took, and it was met with excessive name calling and hate. It's actually OK to be wrong you know.

[Mercules]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

Thanks for actually addressing the argument, but you're not right. Upon investigation, you did not perceive that you were at an advantage, and I'll assume that you didn't manage to find a configuration that helps you, so, at least for now, you have not managed to find any advantages in your exclusive content. That does not mean that other players did not obtain any advantages from switching to Clan.

It doesn't matter what sort of play style a person uses. If it isn't "meta", or isn't smart — that is not actually relevant. Maybe they could improve their gameplay if they adopted a different strategy, or a different type of weapon, but for whatever reason they choose to play the way they play, and although everyone is "unique", there are plenty of other players who will do pretty much the same thing for similar reasons. This is good for the game, because if every last player adopted pop tarting when pop tarts were meta, and everyone adopted LRMs when LRMs were meta, that would be a boring, homogeneous game. So you have diverse play styles, diverse interests, and that's a good thing. For certain people, this will mean that a whole new set of weapons with unique attributes will absolutely help them out. Proof? There is already one guy willing to say that Clan gear works out better for him, and although I have no definitive proof that others exist, I'm comfortable saying he's not a rare example. But at least one guy managed to upgrade his game to a level not previously available to him by purchasing the clan tech update. He did not upgrade his skills, but he upgraded his power by finding a Clan mech that's better suited to his play style. The only people who have that same opportunity are the ones who bought clan.


False equivalence.

I am sorry, but you apparently need to wander back through a Logics course. That was not a False Equivalence. I am comparing two very comparable classes to each other, Mechs and Mechs. You can compare IS Mechs to Clan Mechs just like you can compare a Fuji Apple to a Gala Apple. A Fuji apple is crisp and sweet with a bit of a pear flavor to it. Gala on the other hand is a more mellow sweet like a vanilla bean.

Despite clan mechs having slightly better systems they have less customization than IS mechs. In practice it works out that this balances them out against IS mechs. Notice I said "In practice". On paper, in Smurfy, they completely look like they outclass IS mechs but in actual use against me and by me I can anecdotal, but with experience since Close Beta, say that they are reasonably balanced.

Your theory is that Clan Mechs are pay to win. Your supporting statements appear to be:
P2W is access to something via money that grants you an advantage.
Clan mechs require you to pay to use them (for now).
Clan mechs give you an advantage.

This is a very VALID argument. The issue is that in order for your theory to be true your argument not only has to be valid, which it is, but the supporting statements also have to be true.

Clan mechs give you an advantage is not true. Especially if we consider what the definition of an advantage is in regards to this game. A 65 ton mech gives you an advantage over a 60 ton mech. But the advantage is not measurable enough to be significant enough to say that the game is out of balance. If ANY small increase is an advantage then camo and paint colors are P2W because on certain maps you will blend in an infinitesimal amount better than the next mech. So there is a threshold where an advantage becomes significant enough that we can state that it has made it easier for someone to win IN ALL REASONABLE SITUATIONS.

Clan Mechs Reguire you to pay to use them is a temporary truth. At this very moment you must pay money to utilize Clan Mechs. However that truth will fade very quickly as the weeks advance. This truth will become less and less true until it is negated. Because of that all paying for them does is allow some people to use them now, everyone will have access to them which mean you WILL Have access to them and so you do not in fact HAVE to pay to use them, you can wait and pay C-Bills

P2W is not defined as access to something via money that grants you an advantage. Your narrow definition is not the typical definition of P2W. Instead P2W is typically defined as, "Something bought in a game unavailable through means other than via premium currency, aka real money, that confers a significant advantage not accessible by other means." So, "I can't buy mech X." is not P2W if that mech does not confer a significant advantage, can not be accessed by means other than paying for it, OR does not have an equivalent comparable to it. Your definition is incomplete. So advantage becomes your Middle Term you are distributing between two supporting statements but the issue is that P2W is not JUST an advantage so while the distribution is fine the statement itself is false.

[Atheus]

Mercules, on 25 June 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I am sorry, but you apparently need to wander back through a Logics course. That was not a False Equivalence.

The false equivalence link wasn't for you. It was for the guy talking about Tiger Woods's golf clubs.

Edit: I'll come back and read the rest later, once you've had a chance to decide whether that changes what you want to say.

Edited by Atheus, 25 June 2014 - 03:59 PM.

[Turboferret]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

The false equivalence link wasn't for you. It was for the guy talking about Tiger Woods's golf clubs.

Edit: I'll come back and read the rest later, once you've had a chance to decide whether that changes what you want to say.

I just don't understand how you can possibly keep going when everyone is telling you that you're wrong.

Can you just step back for a moment and consider that you could actually be wrong?

If you are still set in your convictions after careful consideration, and you find that what you believe is "P2W" in this game is fundamentally wrong to your world-view, this is not the game for you and you should just uninstall. (And no, I don't mean that in the "hur dur go uninstall way", I seriously urge you to consider it)

[Sandpit]

Morden Kerensky, on 24 June 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

Should re-name this thread to "I believe these facts support my opinion" IMO.

pretty much

not to mention OP has already stated this in other P2W threads, did you really need to start a new one?

[Atheus]

Azrael1911, on 25 June 2014 - 04:03 PM, said:

I just don't understand how you can possibly keep going when everyone is telling you that you're wrong.

Can you just step back for a moment and consider that you could actually be wrong?

If you are still set in your convictions after careful consideration, and you find that what you believe is "P2W" in this game is fundamentally wrong to your world-view, this is not the game for you and you should just uninstall. (And no, I don't mean that in the "hur dur go uninstall way", I seriously urge you to consider it)

If someone can actually demonstrate that I'm wrong, that will be worth paying attention to. Just saying (as you have) it isn't worth the energy it takes to roll my mouse wheel past it.

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

pretty much

not to mention OP has already stated this in other P2W threads, did you really need to start a new one?

To be honest I developed this idea while I was talking to you in another thread last night, as you noticed, though it was also partially inspired by the "Timmy vs. Spike" thread 1453 R started. I figured it was a good enough proposition to justify polishing it up and putting in its own thread as a single hypothesis without the distractions of unnecessary data and comparisons, rather than the scattered obscurity of someone else's thread only a few people were paying any attention to.

Edited by Atheus, 25 June 2014 - 04:20 PM.

[Turboferret]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

If someone can actually demonstrate that I'm wrong, that will be worth paying attention to. Just saying it isn't worth the energy it takes to roll my mouse wheel past it.

There's the other option too, you should do that one.

I mean uninstall.

[Waelsleaht]

Just stop already! It's pay to win because you want it to be.

It's pay to win because the common meaning of pay to win is pay for advantage wich doesn't not mean you will win. It means you can be less skilled and still have a chance to win.

Pay to win as you know it is in every game unless you change your meaning to suit each game In a f2p genera.

Guess what IRL people have advantages long before you start the game. So why complain about it so much?

[Sandpit]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

If someone can actually demonstrate that I'm wrong, that will be worth paying attention to. Just saying (as you have) it isn't worth the energy it takes to roll my mouse wheel past it.


To be honest I developed this idea while I was talking to you in another thread last night, as you noticed, though it was also partially inspired by the "Timmy vs. Spike" thread 1453 R started. I figured it was a good enough proposition to justify polishing it up and putting in its own thread as a single hypothesis without the distractions of unnecessary data and comparisons, rather than the scattered obscurity of someone else's thread only a few people were paying any attention to.

I'm just saying it didn't new an entirely new thread, all of this could have been posted in one of the other 2-3 dozen "P2W" threads out there.

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

If you can delude yourself into thinking that some cash purchase will provide you some sort of advantage that will help you win matches which you could not obtain using the free currency, then yes you have embraced the principle that you should be able to pay for an advantage, whether or not you were actually correct about receiving a combat advantage that could not be obtained via free methods. In the case of premium time, you would be incorrect, since everything you can get with premium time can be earned through time and effort by free players.

to which I still say

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Exactly
Everything you can get in clan preorder with cash can be earned through time and effort by free players.
Zero difference
Same exact scenario of a player buying a few mechs outright while tjat new player has to wait to get the same mech and then customize it.
There is zero difference

Jusr because a player perceives an :advantage" (which I'm still waiting for an example of) doesn't make it p2w

You just contradicted everything you said

[Atheus]

Azrael1911, on 25 June 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

There's the other option too, you should do that one.

I mean uninstall.

Oh I see. So people who take issue with the game should just leave quietly, I guess? Never mind whether their points are valid, or what sort player base you'd be left with. Sorta reminds me of Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode where he ran around with a petition to outlaw protesting at the US Capitol Building. Is this a democracy? No, but that doesn't mean players need to quietly accept whatever the developer decides to do. I've dumped plenty of time and cash into this game to the point where just walking away involves accepting a loss. It's not up to you to decide when I cut it loose, or how.

Waelsleaht, on 25 June 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

Just stop already! It's pay to win because you want it to be.

It's pay to win because the common meaning of pay to win is pay for advantage wich doesn't not mean you will win. It means you can be less skilled and still have a chance to win.

Pay to win as you know it is in every game unless you change your meaning to suit each game In a f2p genera.

Guess what IRL people have advantages long before you start the game. So why complain about it so much?

Stop what, exactly? Stop pointing out the logical fallacies, or total lack of logical content of the responses directed at me? Stop defending my proof against its detractors, or attempting to share the benefits of accepting reality?

Pay to win as I know it is not in every game. There is no pay to win element in Solitaire, Black Jack, or Craps, even though they are purely about exchanging money in the form of bets. There is no pay to win element in Chess, or Backgammon. There is no pay to win element in Call of Duty, or even (you're going to love this) World of Warcraft. That's because those games are designed with a certain level of integrity, and there was no need to compromise that integrity. PGI screwed up while developing this game and couldn't figure out how to monetize it without P2W, and they're dipping deeper and deeper into that honey pot. The more you defend it and embrace it, the more you can expect more of the same.

[1453 R]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

If players didn't approve, they would be likely to leave or make themselves scarce, right? You mention that there is a spectrum of P2W, but take a good look through this thread. Players inspired to comment can't even acknowledge that MWO is on that spectrum. These players aren't making a sober analysis of the P2W situation and deciding that it's at an acceptable level, they're flat out denying it even applies. With that level of self-deception, there is no way to have a useful conversation.

That is more than enough of this.

I’m going to give you something, Atheus. By your definition, and in fact by the general definition, exempting the fact that the ‘Mechs are known to be coming out for C-bill purchase and will begin doing so shortly (which is an exemption I am not willing to make, outside the situation we have here. There is a difference between a timed exclusive and flat P2W, even if you’re unwilling to acknowledge it), we are in a P2W situation. Not of the sort you’re hoping to hoodwink the player base into believing – that is, that unless you buy Clan ‘Mechs, and more specifically Timber Wolves, you’ll never win a match of MWO again – but we are in a similar and much more painful place as Hero ‘Mechs at the moment.

Your ‘useful conversation’, the solution to the P2W concerns over the Invasion package, and how to make things better for all involved, would then be…what, precisely?

.
..
...

Exactly. There is no useful conversation you can have at this juncture. The only possible thing you can use any sort of generally accepted “Yeah, the Clans are totez legit P2W” definition for is to beat Invasion package holders over the head and try to convince them that they have breached the unspoken rules of honor of the free to play market paradigm. We are, ONCE AGAIN, to the point where the only thing you get out of this entire disaster of a thread is an improved ability to bust out your pointin’ finger and go “You’re a bad person and you should feel bad!” at anyone with an Invasion badge.

STOP IT. That’s enough. It sucks that the Timber Wolf is behind a money gate until November, it does, I feel ya on that count, honest I do. That fact is not my god damned fault. I should not have to put up with accusations of malicious intent because I wanted my damn ‘Mechs for less than eighty jizzillion C-bills, and in less time than the century it’d take me to grind eighty jizzillion C-bills to buy them.

[Sandpit]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 04:48 PM, said:

Oh I see. So people who take issue with the game should just leave quietly, I guess? Never mind whether their points are valid, or what sort player base you'd be left with. Sorta reminds me of Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode where he ran around with a petition to outlaw protesting at the US Capitol Building. Is this a democracy? No, but that doesn't mean players need to quietly accept whatever the developer decides to do. I've dumped plenty of time and cash into this game to the point where just walking away involves accepting a loss. It's not up to you to decide when I cut it loose, or how.


Stop what, exactly? Stop pointing out the logical fallacies, or total lack of logical content of the responses directed at me? Stop defending my proof against its detractors, or attempting to share the benefits of accepting reality?

Pay to win as I know it is not in every game. There is no pay to win element in Solitaire, Black Jack, or Craps, even though they are purely about exchanging money in the form of bets. There is no pay to win element in Chess, or Backgammon. There is no pay to win element in Call of Duty, or even (you're going to love this) World of Warcraft. That's because those games are designed with a certain level of integrity, and there was no need to compromise that integrity. PGI screwed up while developing this game and couldn't figure out how to monetize it without P2W, and they're dipping deeper and deeper into that honey pot. The more you defend it and embrace it, the more you can expect more of the same.

Everything you can get in clan pre-order you can earn for free with time.

You've got numerous people pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, you just don't want to accept it.

I showed this in the other thread that you abandoned and I've shown it here. Your argument just simply isn't true.

Name one real advantage players who pay money get over free players here.

[Atheus]

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Exactly
Everything you can get in clan preorder with cash can be earned through time and effort by free players.
Zero difference
Same exact scenario of a player buying a few mechs outright while tjat new player has to wait to get the same mech and then customize it.
There is zero difference

Jusr because a player perceives an :advantage" (which I'm still waiting for an example of) doesn't make it p2w

You just contradicted everything you said

You're trying to assert that since I said "time and effort" you can take something that isn't being released for another 5 months and claim that waiting for it qualifies as "time and effort". It's a false equivalence. I have already earned the currency needed to purchase the Timberwolf according to the standard this game has of selling items, but it isn't for sale for C-Bills until November. Try again, but this time, just recognize that this has been over a dozen times or more in this thread already, and probably hundreds of times in these forums. It is pay to win today. It will continue to be pay to win for the month of June, and July. It will be somewhat less pay to win in August, but not fully back to 0 until some time in November (at least in regards to the clan invasion). If your pay to win definition involves a time period, you have a functionally crippled definition of pay to win.