513 replies to this topic

[Atheus]

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

@Atheus:

What if I told you it doesn't matter. Your argument is constructed on the subjective feeling of who deserves to win the confrontation.

You are limiting yourself to thinking, that player X does not deserve to be more effective in combat, because instead of putting in extra effort, he just paid some money to arbitrarily make himself better.
But what does it matter in the grand scheme of things?

Imagine, that player X has roughly 50% accuracy. Suddenly, he gets (buys) a gun that fires faster. He is still missing half his shots, but by virtue of shooting more, he is hitting more often.

How is that different, than player X improving his marksmanship skills and simply hitting more often with the old gun?
It all boils down to "but that player doesn't deserve to be better!".

This line of reasoning leads to "It's fine if certain players have quantifiably better equipment" with a touch of "so long as they still kind of suck."

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

Except from the perspective of the player fighting him, there is no difference - the end result is that he is getting hit more often.

Wait — is there no difference, or is he getting hit more often? You are aware that this is a pretty vital contradiction here, right?

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

And before you chime in with "but if the other player also had the faster gun..." - what if the other player was using a different weapon entirely? One with a much lower rate of fire, but higher damage, and relying on his accuracy with it to get one-hit kills?

I don't know, but maybe he would use the gun that player X is using if he could, because it sounds pretty OP.

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

I know the example is very black and white, but it proves a point. If you are the player looking to win, you must be prepared to do better than your opponents, and from this point of view, it doesn't matter WHY your opponent is stronger - only that he is stronger.

Double think successful. Would you believe me if I told you that it does matter why your opponent is stronger? Being logical is not just for ****** who want to chastise the world for being their own worst enemy.

[1453 R]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Yes, exactly.


What gives you this impression? You don't think it's useful if a player population can agree on what is and isn't a pay to win mechanic based on reasonable examination of the concept? If players can't settle on the basic facts due to absurd misconceptions like "P2W means you pay you automatically win" or "It's not P2W if they will eventually release the P2W stuff later on", there is absolutely no reason for the developer to listen to the players who don't have a cohesive voice, much less a rational voice.

The point of this thread is not name and shame, it's attempting to establish a functional and useful definition of P2W, so that people can think clearly on the subject so they can have some hope of applying it correctly when it belongs, and not be the people obstructing the more useful conversation of what to do about P2W creeping in to a game you like.

I’m going to ask you straight up, Atheus. Clear-cut, out in the open.

What do you hope to accomplish here? What is your objective?

If the objective is, as you say, to ascertain a fixed and agreed-upon definition of P2W, and then sit back and nod sagely at your accomplishment, you’re doing nothing helpful.

If your objective is to take that fixed and agreed-upon definition of P2W and use it to club Invasion package holders over the head in an attempt to try and make them feel worse and yourself feel better, well, that’s not only unhelpful but also actively hateful.

If you’re trying to get Piranha to take down the Berlin Pay Wall you and Roland and the others have been pickaxing as much as possible…dude, Piranha is legally and commercially obligated to proceed with the phased release of the Clan ‘Mechs as planned. There are enough players out there who bought into the Invasion packages because they wanted early access that removing the ‘early’ part of it would generate an even worse surge of public backlash than 3PV and Russ’ Apology did. And those surges were so bad they got picked up by video gaming news sites.

If you’re trying to get Piranha to give you free Clan ‘Mechs as an apology for the Berlin Pay Wall, f*** you. Pay your money or pay your time, like everyone else. You’ve got a few months to stockpile C-bills; I suggest putting them to good use.

If you’re trying to get Piranha to stop doing timed-exclusive stuff like the Phoenix and Invasion packages…then come up with a better way for them to pay for the game’s development. Timed exclusives are a fiendishly effective way of making money, and while not the most ethical thing in the world, I find I can sympathize with Piranha taking an early-access/timed exclusive approach after the N.O.P.E. crowd did its absolute best to strangle them to death and encourage everyone else in the game to do the same. Hey – at least we don’t get RNG gambler’s boxes, like all the damned Eastern MMOs get saddled with. Ask me if I’d rather have timed exclusive content or Black Lion chests over in GW2. I guarantee you won’t like the answer.

If you guys want this colossal, larger-than-life thing where you, specifically, decide the fates of every single man, woman and child on every single world in every single nation of the BattleTech Universe, a.k.a. Commodity Warfare…well, somebody has to pay for it. I don’t want it, but I’m paying for it anyways. Should I stop? Apparently I should stop, since some guys on the forum are telling me I’m a bad person and I should feel bad for sinking money into one of my favorite franchises.

[qki]

Whoa there! The definition of pay to win does not depend on time. We are not playing the game in the future, we are playing it now.




Otherwise you get a vicious circle in which whenever one advantage becomes available for in-game credits, another one comes out that makes it obsolete, also available for cash only, with a "delivery date"


If you are going to dispute a point, do it right.

[EyeOne]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

Then you didn't comprehend the argument. Purchasing exclusive content to improve your own performance means you have attempted to pay for an advantage. If your performance improves as a result of your exclusive content purchase, then you have succeeded at paying for an advantage. Two separate principles, and it's really a tautology. You're basically arguing against the reliability of logic itself.

Atheus, you said at the end there that the Clans may not improve your performance because they are a different play style. So P2W is different for different players? Is that how we are going to define this? Ok, for you competitive players, DS is P2W, but for puggers it's not. So, I guess my TDK is P2W because I do well in it. Even though it's widely regarded to be terrible?

That's not how it works. But, keep trying. It's amusing.

Edited by EyeOne, 25 June 2014 - 01:03 PM.

[Atheus]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 June 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Your definition of P2W is neither functional nor useful. If Clans are routinely defeated on the battlefield, you've established only a purely theoretical and abstract standard for P2W, not one that reliably shows up in practical use. And if the Clans will eventually become available for completely free, then your definition of P2W is not only pedantic, but it has an expiration date.

Your reasoning behind saying my definition is not functional or useful is that Clans are routinely defeated? For starters, Clans are mixed with IS right now, so unless you're referencing some unknown data you're just fooling yourself. You mean clan mechs are routinely defeated by IS mechs? This point does not contradict or even erode this argument in the slightest.

And an expiration date? My definition does not worry about when or if a pay wall is coming down. It would be far less useful if it did, because that's a separate issue that should be evaluated on its own. If I can't say "P2W" because the pay wall is coming down in 2015, doesn't that make the term P2W less useful? P2W refers to the situation at one point in time. How big a problem that P2W situation is is the discussion you can have only after you have established that it is P2W. These forums can't even get that far.

[1453 R]

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

Whoa there! The definition of pay to win does not depend on time. We are not playing the game in the future, we are playing it now.




Otherwise you get a vicious circle in which whenever one advantage becomes available for in-game credits, another one comes out that makes it obsolete, also available for cash only, with a "delivery date"


If you are going to dispute a point, do it right.

No no, you see qki, according to Atheus, Roland, and the others in that particular corner of the room, P2W is defined in, and for, any single given moment. If something is P2W, but it's coming available later for not-P2W, then it's still P2W until it's not P2W, at which point it's not P2W but it was P2W during the time in which it was not available for people who aren't evil baby-eating P2W-ers.

P2W likes to hear P2W say P2W. Also, you're an evil baby-eating P2W-ing jerkbag. Proceed to be a cackling basshole in public drops, your honor is already irredeemably destroyed. Don't worry, though - I'm apparently twice the evil baby-eating P2W-ing jerkbag you are. ...frankly, sounds about right.

Whenever you want to talk about alternative methods of funding MWO's development, Atheus, send me a PM and I'll head over and take a look. I swear on what few remaining shreds of bloody, tarnished honor I have left after plugging for both the Overlord and Warhawk packages that I'll leave the BS at home and give the thread the honest once-over it warrants. But as for this thread here? I've said it before, I'll say it again - I'm not a bad person for going in on the Invasion 'Mechs, and I refuse to feel bad for doing so. Regardless of what you, Roland, or anyone else says to me over it.

Edited by 1453 R, 25 June 2014 - 01:08 PM.

[qki]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

This line of reasoning leads to "It's fine if certain players have quantifiably better equipment" with a touch of "so long as they still kind of suck."


Wait — is there no difference, or is he getting hit more often? You are aware that this is a pretty vital contradiction here, right?


I don't know, but maybe he would use the gun that player X is using if he could, because it sounds pretty OP.


Double think successful. Would you believe me if I told you that it does matter why your opponent is stronger? Being logical is not just for ****** who want to chastise the world for being their own worst enemy.

You are missing the point completely.

The player in question wouldn't use the faster gun, because not even with 100% accuracy could it outperform the more powerful one he is already using, fired at 60% accuracy.

There is no contradiction in my post. Player A is getting hit more often, but whether it is the result of a ****** marksman with a rapid-fire gun, or a better marksman with a normal gun is irrelevant.
What matters is that player A can put in an equal performance with what is already available to him.


And no - it doesn't matter why one players performance suddenly spiked. That's just your ego talking. "See that player? He shouldn't win. He didn't deserve to win".

[Roland]

Quote

No no, you see qki, according to Atheus, Roland, and the others in that particular corner of the room, P2W is defined in, and for, any single given moment. If something is P2W, but it's coming available later for not-P2W, then it's still P2W until it's not P2W, at which point it's not P2W but it was P2W during the time in which it was not available for people who aren't evil baby-eating P2W-ers.

According to anyone who understands the term, P2W is defined for a given moment.

When the MC airstrike modules were better then their CBill counterparts, they were P2W.
Then things changed, and they weren't.

It's most obviously understood when you take the idea to the extreme... Take a given imaginary feature.. like super-gold ammo that does double damage, and you can only buy for real world dollars. Obviously P2W, right?

Now, if I announce that in ten years, it will be available for in-game currency, does that somehow make it LESS P2W? No, of course it does not. It's exactly the same.

[Atheus]

1453 R, on 25 June 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

I’m going to ask you straight up, Atheus. Clear-cut, out in the open. What do you hope to accomplish here? What is your objective?

I already answered this very question not long ago in this very thread. I don't think your actual objective is to make me waste my time retyping stuff, but I'm still not going to do it.

[1453 R]

Roland, on 25 June 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

According to anyone who understands the term, P2W is defined for a given moment.

When the MC airstrike modules were better then their CBill counterparts, they were P2W.
Then things changed, and they weren't.

It's most obviously understood when you take the idea to the extreme... Take a given imaginary feature.. like super-gold ammo that does double damage, and you can only buy for real world dollars. Obviously P2W, right?

Now, if I announce that in ten years, it will be available for in-game currency, does that somehow make it LESS P2W? No, of course it does not. It's exactly the same.

Same question I posed to Atheus – what do you want to do about it?

Because the universal forum-wide answer appears to be ‘Castigate the people who were bassholeish enough to go out and buy into the Invasion packages and thus rub all these Clan ‘Mechs in our faces.’ Piranha can’t take down the Berlin Pay Wall without irrevocably damaging their already very fragile image, and the notion that the Clan ‘Mechs are all ludicrously super-overpowered and are generating a huge advantage for anyone in them has been most thoroughly debunked by anyone with two neurons to rub together.

This entire damn subject is useless. All the people arguing for P2W are trying to do is get better leverage with which to badmouth Invasion package holders, Pirahna, and anyone/thing who thought the Clans are cool and should be a part of MWO. How is that even remotely cool? Don’t you people have enough to badmouth everyone else over already?

Edited by 1453 R, 25 June 2014 - 01:20 PM.

[Tynan]

My Adder D is the epitome of pay to win. Nothing beat a 97.2 kph light with lurms.

[Barantor]

cSand, on 25 June 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

pay to get what you want, or STFU and wait. I said it to the other guy, and I'll say it to you right now. Doesn't matter if you are a founder or not. you got what you paid for then, and you get what you pay for now. Deal with it.

Cool story though guy

Nah, if there is something I think is wrong I will say so, just like I am now.

Yeah I got what I paid for, in a game that is still going on. I paid to have things to play in a game they still work in the game. If the game is busted I tell it like it is.

If he thinks something is inbalanced then he should say something about it, if you don't like it then counterpoint it instead of acting like a d-bag and just saying stfu.

[qki]

Hold on a second 1453 R.

The part about p2w being time-irrelevant is actually true. Using an argument like "but it will be available for c-bills and THEN your argument will be void" is just stupid, and I'm not being sarcastic. The argument is for now, not for X months in the future, because by then, there may be another cash-only release with a "delivery date" that obsoletes the previous one. And someone is going to say again, that it isn't paying to win, because, you guessed it, it's going to be available for c-bills later.

This way, it would be possible to have a spiral in which at absolutely no point in time the "free" user would be able to have things that could compete with the premium users...

... with the added bullcrap, that last cycle's premium users automatically become the next cycle's free users, unless they pay again.

See the problem?

If you are going to argue against p2w, you can only do it based on the fact that the exclusive content offers no advantage beyond what is already available in the game for everyone, and not on the fact that it will be released later.

Edited by qki, 25 June 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Roland]

1453 R, on 25 June 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

Same question I posed to Atheus – what do you want to do about it?

My general opinion is that PGI should not release content that is behind a paywall. It's bad for the game, and the reality is that it's likely bad for PGI as it creates bad-blood among their customers.

This is the core of why P2W is bad.. not simply because it's "not cool" or something. But rather because it's bad business. And it's not necessary, as other games have shown that you can create a totally sustainable revenue stream without selling exclusive access to important content that affects gameplay.

At this point, now that PGI has finally made good on their promise to get rid of the player cap for small teams, I've become much more supportive of them (again, as I used to be quite the white knight, back in the day). I've bought all of the other mech packages (not hero mechs though), in order to support their efforts.

I kind of want to purchase the clan mechs, to offer support since they made a choice that I feel was good, and I want to reward good effort.

But with the clans, it feels too much like certain mechs would definitely be a case of me paying them money because those mechs are really awesome and I want to drive them due to how competitive they are. And I feel baddly about supporting that precedent.

It's one of the reasons why I've generally shied away from buying hero mechs too... most are garbage.. but the DS is tempting. But paying money for an advantage is slimey and I don't want to support that idea.

Generally, I believe that PGI should go the route of making every piece of equipment in the game which is not cosmetic, accessible for in-game currency. It think that overall, it would benefit the game community, and PGI itself as I believe people would still give them tons of money, just like they do for other F2P titles that limit their transactions to convenience and cosmetic items.

In this case, it's certainly problematic since people believed they would have some period of exclusive access. That being said, when the sales were made, PGI didn't originally reveal a release date, so no particular promise was made regarding how long such exclusivity would last.

[Atheus]

qki, on 25 June 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

You are missing the point completely.

The player in question wouldn't use the faster gun, because not even with 100% accuracy could it outperform the more powerful one he is already using, fired at 60% accuracy.

There is no contradiction in my post. Player A is getting hit more often, but whether it is the result of a ****** marksman with a rapid-fire gun, or a better marksman with a normal gun is irrelevant.
What matters is that player A can put in an equal performance with what is already available to him.


And no - it doesn't matter why one players performance suddenly spiked. That's just your ego talking. "See that player? He shouldn't win. He didn't deserve to win".

You're mixing 2 premises here. Either Player A and Player X are normally on even footing, or they are not.

• If they were even, but player X upgrades to a better gun, then he's going to start winning more.
  
• If Player A is normally better than Player X, then depending on the amount of difference, Player A may still be ahead, may lose some of his advantage, or may by surpassed by player X with a new gun.
  
• If Player A is normally worse than player X, then the only change is that he dies faster.

In all these scenarios, player X got an upgrade, just that it didn't always let him win over Player A regardless of their skill gap. But it's not just player A that has to worry about player X. There is a whole community of players who play better, worse, and just the same as player X. If player X suddenly gets better skills, he's going to move up in the hierarchy. If he upgrades his weapon, the same thing happens without the need for change in skill.

Now you'll want to say well what if Player A could use player X's weapon upgrade, but chooses not to? Well that doesn't particularly matter. It's a bad assumption to begin with, but even if he can't benefit from X's cash shp uzi, there are plenty of other players just like player X who would benefit from a gun that shoots twice as fast who are going to get mowed down by X regardless of their identical skill.

[WarHippy]

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

• Strong mechs have a greater chance of winning than weak mechs.
  

True, but depends greatly on individual skill as to what mechs are stronger or weaker.

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Players generally prefer a strong mech to a weak mech.

True

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Players will attempt to design the strongest mech they can to suit their current play style, or the play style they would like to adopt.

True

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

In a competition setting, players will choose the mech they feel gives their team the best chance of winning.

True

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Pay to Win means that something that is only available for cash can provide an advantage that can not be duplicated by an equivalent non-cash item.

Incorrect. Pay to Win means that something that is only available for cash does provide an advantage that can not be duplicated by an equivalent non-cash item.

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

Providing a date at which a pay-to-win item will be available for in-game currency does not change the pay-to-win nature of said item in the present.

Incorrect. Free to Play games often provide a paid option to bypass time sinks, and this is no different.

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

A Dragon Slayer Victor is very similar in hard points to the VTR-9S, but in a competition setting you'll see almost exclusively DS variants. The reasons are obvious to anyone familiar with the chassis. They're amazingly good pop-tarts, and pop-tarts win competitions. But the reason they choose the DS over the 9S is because of the different positioning of the ballistic hard points. The pilots understand that having the weapons all on the right side is an advantage, and so as not to fall behind other pilots who have that advantage, they purchase and use the DS. This example is funny since they are not paying to win, they're paying to not lose to the other guys who paid to win. Their choice of the DS makes it impossible to deny that they are paying for advantages that are not available for C-Bills. Therefore, by choosing that mech to use to win tournaments, they confirm that in their most honest analysis, their best option is the DS, therefore confirming their own consent to PGI's pay to win game structure.


Stepping away from the tournament, let's have a look at Clan tech. It is available immediately for cash, but will gradually become available in the C-Bill market between August and November. That's 2 months before the first clan mech is available for C-Bills, and 5 until the last is released.

Clan tech has many unique attributes. Nearly all attributes deviate from IS tech, and while most of them are pros, some are cons. The question is how do we figure out which is better overall? Well fortunately we don't need to come up with a consensus on which is better. Individual players will decide the answer based on their own estimations of what will best suit their play style. Some will be wrong, and make bad choices, but some will be right, and make good choices. Of the ones who are right, some will choose IS, and others will choose Clan. I can not irrefutably prove the existence of players who will both choose clan and be correct, but I do feel it is a reasonable assertion that such a player can exist, and most likely does exist — possibly in large numbers.

I'd like to point out that it does not matter whether this hypothetical player is highly skilled, or modestly skilled. The question is whether Clan tech will improve their ability to kill enemies and/or win matches. If they can build a mech that is better suited to killing/winning using their play style with Clan tech than they can build using IS tech, they serve as living proof that Clan tech can indeed provide an advantage to certain players that currently can not be acquired with C-Bills.

Is this Clan advantage universal to all players? Maybe not. It doesn't particularly matter, though. Some players may find Clan tech does not suit their play style. That does not mean that other players can not boost their combat potential using clan tech. Thus, whether or not you feel you can personally benefit from Clan tech, you should absolutely recognize that it is a pay to win element that will continue to be just that until all of it is available for C-Bills.

This argument is eerily similar to an argument brought fourth by Thomas Covenant over a year ago.http://mwomercs.com/...of-exclusivity/ The thing is just like him you are wrong. What one mech someone is better in is irrelevant to the overall balance of the game. Just because someone might be better with a Clan mech or a Hero mech does not mean it is p2w because they can't access it without paying anymore so than it means it is pay to lose when a Clan or Hero mech is someone's least effective mech. Individual player skill is too variable for it to be used in a discussion of balance, or in this case if an unfair advantage is gained through financial means. For something to be p2w it must always provide and advantage over the non-paid method regardless of skill. Mind you this does not mean a p2w item guarantees you to win, but merely an advantage you would otherwise not have.

[Roland]

Part of the problem with this thread is that it talks about "Clans" being overpowered, when the reality is that it's only a subset of all the clan stuff which is particularly strong compared to existing mechs.

[KamikazeRat]

so...i have a thought, is P2W...THAT bad? shouldnt paying for something give you something better? even if it is just marginally better or situationally better? other than paying for something that is just cool like camo or the gold mechs...shouldnt there be some sort of advantage to it if you put down money on a FREE game?

not stating an opinion on this matter at this time...just injecting a thought (i did buy clan mechs, so you can probably figure it out from there)

[badaa]

nothing in this game is pay to win 9 times out 0f 10 the mc only mechs r complete **** compared to the c-bill ones

[Coolant]

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 08:44 PM, said:

The debate over whether clan tech is P2W has been raging for days now. I finally realized that it's quite easy to prove the P2W status of clan tech. This line of reasoning was inspired by the intensely popular Dragon Slayer Victor.

• Strong mechs have a greater chance of winning than weak mechs.
  
• Players generally prefer a strong mech to a weak mech.
  
• Players will attempt to design the strongest mech they can to suit their current play style, or the play style they would like to adopt.
  
• In a competition setting, players will choose the mech they feel gives their team the best chance of winning.
  
• Pay to Win means that something that is only available for cash can provide an advantage that can not be duplicated by an equivalent non-cash item.
  
• Providing a date at which a pay-to-win item will be available for in-game currency does not change the pay-to-win nature of said item in the present.

A Dragon Slayer Victor is very similar in hard points to the VTR-9S, but in a competition setting you'll see almost exclusively DS variants. The reasons are obvious to anyone familiar with the chassis. They're amazingly good pop-tarts, and pop-tarts win competitions. But the reason they choose the DS over the 9S is because of the different positioning of the ballistic hard points. The pilots understand that having the weapons all on the right side is an advantage, and so as not to fall behind other pilots who have that advantage, they purchase and use the DS. This example is funny since they are not paying to win, they're paying to not lose to the other guys who paid to win. Their choice of the DS makes it impossible to deny that they are paying for advantages that are not available for C-Bills. Therefore, by choosing that mech to use to win tournaments, they confirm that in their most honest analysis, their best option is the DS, therefore confirming their own consent to PGI's pay to win game structure.


Stepping away from the tournament, let's have a look at Clan tech. It is available immediately for cash, but will gradually become available in the C-Bill market between August and November. That's 2 months before the first clan mech is available for C-Bills, and 5 until the last is released.

Clan tech has many unique attributes. Nearly all attributes deviate from IS tech, and while most of them are pros, some are cons. The question is how do we figure out which is better overall? Well fortunately we don't need to come up with a consensus on which is better. Individual players will decide the answer based on their own estimations of what will best suit their play style. Some will be wrong, and make bad choices, but some will be right, and make good choices. Of the ones who are right, some will choose IS, and others will choose Clan. I can not irrefutably prove the existence of players who will both choose clan and be correct, but I do feel it is a reasonable assertion that such a player can exist, and most likely does exist — possibly in large numbers.

I'd like to point out that it does not matter whether this hypothetical player is highly skilled, or modestly skilled. The question is whether Clan tech will improve their ability to kill enemies and/or win matches. If they can build a mech that is better suited to killing/winning using their play style with Clan tech than they can build using IS tech, they serve as living proof that Clan tech can indeed provide an advantage to certain players that currently can not be acquired with C-Bills.

Is this Clan advantage universal to all players? Maybe not. It doesn't particularly matter, though. Some players may find Clan tech does not suit their play style. That does not mean that other players can not boost their combat potential using clan tech. Thus, whether or not you feel you can personally benefit from Clan tech, you should absolutely recognize that it is a pay to win element that will continue to be just that until all of it is available for C-Bills.

zero proof...