513 replies to this topic

[Sug]

I'm starting to think Heffey changed his name to Atheus just to troll us all over again.

[Atheus]

Ghost Badger, on 26 June 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

There are people here waiting on a response from you? After summarily telling you that you're wrong, most of us moved into sub-discussions tangentially related to your OP.

We kinda forgot about you...our intention isn't to convince you of anything, it's out to point to people that read your thread that you're wrong, and in the minority.

Looking up, yeah there are a number of people who have just said they're waiting on a response from me. You seem to be tallying up the people who are "telling me that I'm wrong", but are you actually interested in whether they have demonstrated that I'm wrong? In fact a few have demonstrated that I'm right in the process of trying to do the opposite. Follow the logic, not the sentiments.

[TB Freelancer]

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

/thread

[xhrit]

With no way for hero mechs to be purchased with cbills I have to agree, this game violates one of the principals of good f2p design, and enters the realm of p2w.

There needs to be a way for f2p players to earn MC - even if it is just something that lets players auction MC to other players for c-bills.

[1453 R]

Thread: Reader’s Digest Edition

Atheus: “The Invasion package is P2W, because at least one player in the game has at at least one point, in at least one drop, done better than he otherwise would have because he had a Clan ‘Mech. No argument you can make invalidates this proposition.”

Everyone Else: “Okay…even if that’s true, just for the sake of argument, what’re we supposed to do about it? How do we fix it, how do we make it better?”

Atheus: “That’s not the point of this thread. All I’m asking is that the forum as a whole agree that we’re currently playing a P2W game.”

Everyone Else: “Bwuh…? But, why?! What does that even do, other than get everyone mad and make all the people without Invasion packages feel even more justified than before in being total d***s to the people who do have them?! What the frog’s the point?!”

Atheus: “Not my problem. We can move on to that stage after we’ve all agreed that Invasion package holders are bad people and should feel bad the Clans are P2W, and we’re all thusly playing a P2W game.”

Everyone Else: “Man, that’s not good enough! All you’re doing is stirring up a giant s***storm for no damn reason!”

Atheus: “Not my problem. Now agree with me or get out.”

Everyone Else: “But…but…GAH!”

Rinse and repeat for twenty pages.

[Mercules]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

This whole post is a declaration that you're supporting with an appeal to the masses. If you look, about half the people in here are just arguing about the DEFINITION of pay to win, not even the argument itself. What I'm really struggling with here is not the logical attacks on my argument (which have been fairly scarce), it seems to be the ability of people to absorb information.

You have to argue the definition of pay to win. In order to have an intelligent discussion on any subject you need to be certain that everyone use using the same language in the same way.

As a very loose example... there was a time when "Bad" was a slang for "Good" in an ironic sort of way. If I had a discussion with someone and they were using it that way and stated, "That mech is soooooo baaaaaaad." and I didn't understand from the context they were using that slang version I would get the wrong information from that discussion.


You, won't give us a definitive definition of P2W or agree on the definitions we have presented. So NO discussion or logical argument can be made. I can't prove or disprove P2W if we can't accurately state what it is because I can't offer supporting arguments for or against a non-defined term.

[qki]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

lots of gibberish

My patience is wearing thin right now (helped none at all by the fact that some POS knocked out one of my car windows, apparently for fun, so I am a little edgy right now).

You are either trolling, or silly.

Accept this simple definition of pay to win:

A situation in a competetive game, where one player is able to buy, using real money, an advantage, that has no reasonably attainable equivalent that does not require spending money


This definition is entirely objective, not dependent on any mystical feelings, imaginary rules, or phases of the moon.

Your problem, is that you consider only half of the definition, and make false assumptions, and other logical fallacies based on it.

Your first fallacy, is basing your entire argument on the idiotic assumption, that your oponents SHOULD lose. That (using the ABC example) if player 2 didn't have access to the premium B+, he would have used C like he should, and promptly lost to player 1 using B.
But why in the seven hells WHY?! Where the hell is it written, that player 2 HAS TO use C? It might be his favourite, but there is no rule in the game that says he cannot recognise C as inferior to B and start using a different tactic.

He has every right to use B, or even A against player 1 - he could have been using A all along. So what is your plan, for dealing with people using A? To lay down and surrender? For all you know, every single one of your opponents might be using A. That is statistically improbable, but it doesn't change anything.

The World Cup (and depending on where you live, you will call it football or soccer) is going on right now. Do you think that teams like Italy, or Brasil prepared to play against Ecuador and Ghana? Hell no - they are going for the cup, and that means beating the team in the second place, not the 3rd team in the crappiest group that never makes it into 1/8th finals.

If you are playing to win, you get ready to beat the A team, not the B and C team. It does not matter if your opponent is using A, or B or B+ premium - you still aim for the A.


And if you are not playing to win, but "to have fun", and deliberately use one of the weaker tactics (B or C), because you find them more appealing, then you must accept two things:

1. That better options exist than the one you chose.

and

2. That every player can use any tactic they like, including all the stronger ones.



Instead, you make the assumption, that players will not be using stronger tactics. Stop it. There is no such rule in this game - it exists only in your mind. It is entirely subjective, based on your own perception of who deserves to win. The principles of it are the same, as racism (replace ethnicity with "inferior players").



As long as the premium stuff does not excede anything readily available without using real money, the situation cannot be classified as pay to win, period.

[Atheus]

Mercules, on 26 June 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

You have to argue the definition of pay to win. In order to have an intelligent discussion on any subject you need to be certain that everyone use using the same language in the same way.

Which is exactly the point of this thread. People will not be able to have a useful discussion on taking action because they first need to reach a consensus on what to call a **** when you see it. Some people are hung up on what turds really are, while others know what turds are, but refuse to identify the **** that I'm examining as a ****. With that level of logical malfunctioning going on, nobody is ever going to have any hope of figuring out how to get the dog to stop pooping on the floor.

Mercules, on 26 June 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

You, won't give us a definitive definition of P2W or agree on the definitions we have presented. So NO discussion or logical argument can be made. I can't prove or disprove P2W if we can't accurately state what it is because I can't offer supporting arguments for or against a non-defined term.

Just look at the original post already. I wrote it. I defined P2W. Heck, look up P2W in any credible source. The definition is the same.
Here, from Wikipedia:

Quote

In some multiplayer free-to-play games, players who are willing to pay for special items or downloadable content may be able to gain a significant advantage over those playing for free. Critics of such games call them "pay-to-win" games. A common suggestion for avoiding pay-to-win is that payments should only be used to broaden the experience without affecting gameplay.^[25] Some suggest finding a balance between a game that encourages players to pay for extra content that enhances the game without making the free version feel limited by comparison.^[26] This theory is that players who do not pay for items would still increase awareness of it through word of mouth marketing, which ultimately benefits the game indirectly. In response to concerns about players using payments to gain an advantage in game, titles such as World of Tanks have explicitly committed to not giving paying players any advantages over their non-paying peers.

But to be honest, when you're refuting an argument you don't really get to challenge the definition of a term! You evaluate whether the argument fits the parameters of the definition given — and it was given at the very start. See Disputing Definitions. If you do come in and actually manage to prove that I'm using the wrong term (which is not the case), that still would not upset the logical integrity of the argument, only the label of the actual conditions being evaluated.

[Sug]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Looking up, yeah there are a number of people who have just said they're waiting on a response from me. You seem to be tallying up the people who are "telling me that I'm wrong", but are you actually interested in whether they have demonstrated that I'm wrong? In fact a few have demonstrated that I'm right in the process of trying to do the opposite. Follow the logic, not the sentiments.

Classic Heffey.

[Atheus]

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Accept this simple definition of pay to win:

A situation in a competetive game, where one player is able to buy, using real money, an advantage, that has no reasonably attainable equivalent that does not require spending money

For the purposes of this individual post I'll accept your definition.

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Your problem, is that you consider only half of the definition, and make false assumptions, and other logical fallacies based on it.

Your first fallacy, is basing your entire argument on the idiotic assumption, that your oponents SHOULD lose. That (using the ABC example) if player 2 didn't have access to the premium B+, he would have used C like he should, and promptly lost to player 1 using B.
But why in the seven hells WHY?! Where the hell is it written, that player 2 HAS TO use C? It might be his favourite, but there is no rule in the game that says he cannot recognise C as inferior to B and start using a different tactic.

He has every right to use B, or even A against player 1 - he could have been using A all along. So what is your plan, for dealing with people using A? To lay down and surrender? For all you know, every single one of your opponents might be using A. That is statistically improbable, but it doesn't change anything.

I really don't even need to get into the nitty gritty of your hypthetical here (though I will in just a second). The argument is talking about clan tech in MWO, and how to determine whether it is pay to win, which I defined. For now, I'm using your definition though, that the advantage can't have a reasonably attainable equivalent. You are cutting the cake the way you like by saying that a completely different weapon system, like a ballistic with high FLD can serve as an equivalent advantage to a laser with greater range and higher damage. The whole point is that this analysis is far too vague to be useful in the context of MWO because players are mixing these weapons in all sorts of ways, so you have to evaluate the "weapon" as an entire mech with its unique loadout with no regard for the type of actual weapons are used. Even allowing you to cut the cake the way you like, though, your own words state that your best mech - your top performer - is Clan. There is no "better weapon" that you forgot to mention. For you, as a player, Clan is giving you an advantage over your IS doppelganger.

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

The World Cup (and depending on where you live, you will call it football or soccer) is going on right now. Do you think that teams like Italy, or Brasil prepared to play against Ecuador and Ghana? Hell no - they are going for the cup, and that means beating the team in the second place, not the 3rd team in the crappiest group that never makes it into 1/8th finals.

But it probably matters to Ecuador and Ghana how well they can do, along with every team in the match. Besides, MWO isn't a tournament. It's a totally meaningless series of 12v12 matches in which victory results in nothing but a stack of C-Bills and some numbers on your stats page, plus whatever transitory pleasures you got out of the fight.

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

If you are playing to win, you get ready to beat the A team, not the B and C team. It does not matter if your opponent is using A, or B or B+ premium - you still aim for the A.


And if you are not playing to win, but "to have fun", and deliberately use one of the weaker tactics (B or C), because you find them more appealing, then you must accept two things:

1. That better options exist than the one you chose.

and

2. That every player can use any tactic they like, including all the stronger ones.

But your whole point becomes moot when the strongest tactic is also cash exclusive, as in your case.

So you're rejecting the premise that certain players do not presently have the skill to use certain weapons effectively? That is just false. Some players really can't use the gauss cannon well, and so they're basically cut off from using it unless they buy a better mouse, or buff their skills. Australian players have high latency that makes certain weapons completely impractical, and others far more appealing. The thing is that you have to deal with what that player can do in the present. Can they broaden their skill set? Can they move to Canada? Yes! But they have not done that yet, and they are competing with other players who have their own circumstances in the present. They're not competing with the meta, they're competing with the whole MWO playerbase.

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

Instead, you make the assumption, that players will not be using stronger tactics. Stop it. There is no such rule in this game - it exists only in your mind. It is entirely subjective, based on your own perception of who deserves to win. The principles of it are the same, as racism (replace ethnicity with "inferior players").

As long as the premium stuff does not excede anything readily available without using real money, the situation cannot be classified as pay to win, period.

And I've already demonstrated this is irrelevant, since players don't just instantly get better at something because they want to. Once you've improved your skills, you no longer represent the same data point for pilots.

[Joseph Mallan]

Vercinaigh, on 26 June 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

I see the funny you made here, or atleast I hope it was a funny

Not at all. If there was an actual game to win I might be concerned. But as it stands right now. What are we Winning? Paid or not, We have zero gain but bragging right.

[Revis Volek]

LordKnightFandragon, on 24 June 2014 - 11:17 PM, said:

Yeah, after dumping 15K into the skill then 6mill to actually have it.

Whereas the clan pack guys got it for free didnt they?

Dead wrong....i bought the 210 mad cat package DID NOT get the module and still had to spend 15,000 exp to use it. I think only the Top Clan Pack GOT the module and still had to spend the 15,000.

With my pack i got Shock Absorbance and Speed retention....which i have not used either.

Also....this IS NOT PAY TO WIN, we paid for convenience. You will get these mechs FOR FREE in a determined amount of time. I'm sorry that anyone is in a position where they cannot afford it I wish you better luck and a raise in pay!!! But technically using the definition we have accepted in this thread, we are not pay to win. There is an equivalent to everything we bought some just not here yet. So again....

Pay for Convenience, Most hero mechs are terrible....one way to fix this is 4X3! And then what the hell is thsi even worth bitching about?! Unless you do PVT matches with a competitive team...in that case you need more then a team of DS's, 3d's, and Miserys and embers.

Edited by DarthRevis, 26 June 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[qki]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

But your whole point becomes moot when the strongest tactic is also cash exclusive, as in your case.

That is the crux of the matter, and also what numerous players are arguing.

The strongest tactic is not cash exclusive. If you are refering to the dragon slayer, than a highlander or a regular victor is a perfectly acceptable substitute, in some cases superior (hgn).


You just seem unable to get over the fact, that "improved performance" does not equal "advantage over other players".

In fact - it can be beneficial to the game, allowing players to jump ahead of the curve. I'm not talking about extremes, when the premium equipment allows you to easily compete with the strongest players (but that already violates the requirements).

Sure - players don't get better instantly, but that is irrelevant. The definition simply assumes that for any given player, the non-premium options available to that player, must rival or excede any premium options (which does not mean "all free stuff muct be better/equal to all premium stuff").
The players willingness, or unwillingness (or indeed his ability) to use that tactic is not important (within reason - if the tactic to rival the premium stuff is notoriously difficult to use, then it doesn't meet the "reasonably attainable" criteria of the definition. For the record, being a timed exclusive "to be made available later" also violates this part).

Edit:
Oh, and since dealing with the police and insurance compan kinda wore me out, here is one last thing for you to chew through (in your own time)

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw

Edited by qki, 26 June 2014 - 01:58 PM.

[KharnZor]

this whole thread:

[Turboferret]

I'd just like to remind everyone that Atheus agreed to uninstall.

He still hasn't seem to make good on it.

Uninstall, Atheus. You promised.

[Xetelian]

Current state of the game is Pay 2 Win in a cool mech.

Eventually it'll even out but we have till Nov. before they are all available. Which is really sad.

[Turboferret]

Oh, and Atheus?

When you uninstall, please go ahead and take a screenshot for me too, okay?

Thanks! :3

[1453 R]

Azrael1911, on 26 June 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

I'd just like to remind everyone that Atheus agreed to uninstall.

He still hasn't seem to make good on it.

Uninstall, Atheus. You promised.

I don’t even want him to uninstall.

I want one thing, and one thing alone. It is a thing he has categorically refused to give for the last twenty-one pages of bullscheissen. I’ve asked him for it several times, and tried to prod/goad it out of him even more. I am now going to put it into the plaints, most black-and-white, most inarguably clear words I can find.

Atheus.

What is your proposal for dealing with the problem of P2W-ness outlined in your initial post, such as to solve the issue of the Clans being stuck behind the Berlin Pay Wall? How do you propose to remove the problem, in a manner satisfactory to both Invasion package holders and the general populace?

IF YOU HAVE NO SOLUTION YOU WISH TO TRY AND ARGUE TOWARDS, THIS ENTIRE THREAD IS NOTHING BUT MEANINGLESS, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND MALICIOUS-MINDED ANGERMONGERING AND IT NEEDS TO GO TO K-TOWN ALREADY.

[Naduk]

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

All it takes to prove is one guy who says he likes to play with lasers and so Clan tech works out better for him. Do you think it will be hard to find someone like that, because that one guy is paying for an advantage. Heck, I would be that guy myself if I bought Clan tech, but I'm pretty opposed to P2W, so that's not happening.

WRONG
one person who likes something and uses it does not make it a winning move

pay to win has very simple rules
an item that was paid for will give very clear and unmatched advantage vs free items
this is raw numbers
this is not up for debate by the comunity it is hard fact
a pay to win item cannot be gained by any means for free

your orignal post is all based on peoples feelings
this is very out of context in a P2W vs F2P argument

lets assume a Clan large laser can fit on any mech and does double damage, half heat, half tonnage, double fire rate, double range vs the IS laser it would be op
if its available to everyone its just OP and kinda stupid
if it can ONLY be purchased with real $ or equivalent (MC) and will remain that way for ever
that would be pay to win as the bought weapon will allways peform better than free items

clan mechs and gear has a pulicly announced release schedual to the free players
this single statement defeates any pay to win aspect of anything about the clans
you can even take the super op example i just made and apply it to this, if it is available for free it is NOT pay to win
this is FACT

what you are currently seeing is pay for early access

[Sandpit]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

If you look, about half the people in here are just arguing about the DEFINITION of pay to win,

No, they're arguing abouu YOUR definition of pay to win which, as vague and muddled as you've attempted to make it to prevent any concrete argument against it, just validates my point.

keep on keeping on though, this thread is bringing me great amusement

1453 R, on 26 June 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

Atheus: “That’s not the point of this thread. All I’m asking is that the forum as a whole agree that we’re currently playing a P2W game.”

you can't be this dense.....

seriously? lol

So the whole point of the thread is to get the whole community to agree with you that MWO is P2W, yet when they don't you continue.... smh

okie dokie then lol I'm going to go back to just letting the others handle this. I don't feel anyone with any common sense in their head is going to be buying what you're selling.