513 replies to this topic

[RussianWolf]

Here's my stock Huginn. If ever there was a gimped mech
HUGINN 13 10 3 3.33 8 9 0.89 2,111 16,253 01:12:14

and the Awesome 8V that I bought last night
AWESOME AWS-8V 1 1 0 1.00 1 1 1.00 344 1,938 00:07:21

or a little stock Stalker action
STALKER STK-4N 21 10 11 0.91 11 13 0.85 5,023 19,636 02:13:45


yes, its possible to do well in stock mechs. More challenging, but possible. I'm having a blast doing it.

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 June 2014 - 06:43 PM.

[Tesunie]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

I find it a little funny that you think those stats are blowing holes in my thesis. How are they even relevant?

That's in a stock IS mech... playing out in PGU land with Clans... Far more relevant than your gold ammo example...

I could continue to pull more stats of newly bought mechs, like my Awesomes (which I do have worse results in, because they ARE SO SLOW). I also don't own a single Hero mech, and I seem to preform just fine (often times in the upper half of my team) in the freebie c-bill mechs. (Unless you consider the Phoenix mechs to be hero mechs, even though they have the exact same hard points and hard point locations as the none Phoenix mechs.)

The point being, if I'm preforming well in a stock mech while playing against (and with) the clans... is there really a problem? According to your "evidence", I should be getting stomped against the "P2W" mechs (clans and heroes), especially in my stock mech, which has single heat sinks, two tons of ammo, and run itself hot very quickly, and also is rather slow for a medium mech.



So, besides all that information, what would you think the people who paid $30-200+ are suppose to do once the mechs they bought become free to buy/play? Are they still pay to win then? Or should they be demanding their money back because now everyone else can get the same rides they have?

[Atheus]

RussianWolf, on 25 June 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

You claim to have proof, but you don't have to prove that you have proof????? okay.

No, I'm simply stating that, proving those statements is not necessary to proving the argument.The first statement implies that all hero mechs are always pay to win. That is not my assertion. My assertion is that they all have the potential to be pay to win, and in many cases, they are. The other two are trying to make unnecessary generalizations that wind up pointing at specific data such as "all clan mechs" or "all clan weapons". What needs to be supported is that for a given player, if they can do better in clan mechs than they do in IS mechs, upgrading to clan would be a paid advantage. It's taken on a case by case basis, and you get mixed results. To marginalize the argument, you need to demonstrate that it is very unlikely for clan mechs to provide an advantage to anyone.

RussianWolf, on 25 June 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

So you can't prove it, and If I don't accept your circumstantial evidence then you don't want to play???

Yeah, basically. If your problem is that you can't accept a mundane assumption like that as reasonably probable, I don't have the energy to convince you otherwise.

RussianWolf, on 25 June 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

Here's more circumstantial evidence that counters your claims. I am a better than average player. I have 130 mechs in my garage and have kills in almost all of them (except some of the clan mechs that I've only played once). I have recently been playing both IS and Clan mechs in their stock configs in almost equal numbers. I have more kills since the 17th in IS mechs than in Clan mechs. My win los stats during that time are about 50/50 in both types. So, what do you make of that.

Even hunted down a Jagermech in my stock commando 1B and killed him before his friends showed up (FupDup witnessed that and suggested DHS )

If you're trying to make the point that people will use useless data and anecdotes to fill in the needed evidence gaps, then point taken. I still suspect many people will have no problem accepting the proposition that some players will do better in clan mechs.

[Tesunie]

RussianWolf, on 25 June 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

Here's my stock Huginn. If ever there was a gimped mech
HUGINN 13 10 3 3.33 8 9 0.89 2,111 16,253 01:12:14

and the Awesome 8V that I bought last night
AWESOME AWS-8V 1 1 0 1.00 1 1 1.00 344 1,938 00:07:21

or a little stock Stalker action
STALKER STK-4N 21 10 11 0.91 11 13 0.85 5,023 19,636 02:13:45


yes, its possible to do well in stock mechs. More challenging, but possible. I'm having a blast doing it.

For their tonnage, you're doing rather well.

Raven Huginn:
Damage per match: 162.39
Damage per ton: 4.64 (5 is considered fairly good by most people's standards that I know of.)

Awesome: (with a single match, not much data)
Damage per match: 344
Damage per ton: 4.3

Stalker:
Damage per match: 239.19
Damage per ton: 2.81 (it's 85 tons, right?)

Your Stalker actually was your worst performer so far, but that isn't an easy chassis to play stock. So much heat. So many weapon groups! Your (P2W) Huginn is your best performer for efficiency per ton so far, followed closely by the (F2P) Awesome. Fear that Raven hero!

[Tesunie]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

you need to demonstrate that it is very unlikely for clan mechs to provide an advantage to anyone.

So... Let me get this right. We need to PROVE you wrong, but you don't have to prove YOURSELF correct to start off with?

Someone does not grasp the point of proving a thesis... (And, we have been providing proof. We pulled out stock mech stats. That isn't even out customized mechs for better efficiency...)

[ShinobiHunter]

You can't run a business on charity. And in case you didn't know PGI is a business. I like this setup, rather than a subscription or one time pay. If there was no advantage to spend cash on things instead of just C-bills they would go out of business rather quickly and we'd all be out of a game. Also the mechs you pay for are not over-the-top good, my K-2 is far better than my Jester.

[Sandpit]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 05:01 PM, 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.

again

I ask (for like the 12th time)

what "advantage" do you get with a clan mech that free players do not?

[RussianWolf]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

No, I'm simply stating that, proving those statements is not necessary to proving the argument.The first statement implies that all hero mechs are always pay to win. That is not my assertion. My assertion is that they all have the potential to be pay to win, and in many cases, they are. The other two are trying to make unnecessary generalizations that wind up pointing at specific data such as "all clan mechs" or "all clan weapons". What needs to be supported is that for a given player, if they can do better in clan mechs than they do in IS mechs, upgrading to clan would be a paid advantage. It's taken on a case by case basis, and you get mixed results. To marginalize the argument, you need to demonstrate that it is very unlikely for clan mechs to provide an advantage to anyone.

Sorry, the title doesn't say "PROOF that SOME clan tech and SOME hero mechs are P2W". If you take your own premise that to be P2W the mechs have to be Stronger. You lack any PROOF. You have provided circumstances and assumptions, nothing that actually proves anything. Now you want to say that its a case by case basis down to even the players. Sorry, but you have no feet to stand on any longer. A case could be made that ANYTHING that is MC only meets that criteria. So the Neon Green paint on my stock F2P mechs makes them P2W because I like the color and do better when I put it on my mechs. Ludicris.

Quote

Yeah, basically. If your problem is that you can't accept a mundane assumption like that as reasonably probable, I don't have the energy to convince you otherwise.

You would never survive a debate team. The mundane assumptiuon that you are trying to get everyone to agree with is the entire basis of your arguement and exactly why you need actual PROOF. And you know what they say about assumptions.... They make an A S S out of U

Quote

If you're trying to make the point that people will use useless data and anecdotes to fill in the needed evidence gaps, then point taken. I still suspect many people will have no problem accepting the proposition that some players will do better in clan mechs.

Exactly my point. Your evidence is proof of nothing.

Many people believe Obama is a Muslim that was born in Kenya, despite all evidence (ACTUAL EVIDENCE) to the contrary. But go ahead and get out your tin-foil hats.

Edited by RussianWolf, 25 June 2014 - 07:18 PM.

[Sandpit]

P.S. to everyone else...

He's jsut trying to rile you up and you can't win a circular argument. He's just hoping to debate the subject. He has no "proof" as the game isn't P2W. Just hypothetical scenarios and when he contradicts himself he simple shifts the argument to another form, thread, or hypothetical. Continuing to argue in a circle with someone who refuses to admit that they have no proof, can provide no examples of any "advantages" over free players, and otherwise just all-around arguing for aruiging's sake isn't going to "convince" him that he's wrong because he knows the game isn't P2W, just wants to have some fun debating the issue.

as long as you keep that in mind you can have some fun. If you take this as a serious "debate" you'll just get yourself frustrated.

FYI?

Proof is not hypothetical, nor is it questionable. Proof is just that. It shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that something is as it is stated to be. Proof isn't "well see I think", THAT is an opinion. You're stating your opinion as fact with absolutely no supporting evidence. Your evidence consists of "perceived" benefits, hypothetical situations and players and examples, and your opinion.

That doesn't add up to proof of anything other than how you come to your opinion. Stating you have proof implies you are going to provide evidence that proves a factual basis for your opinion. Not the other way around. An opinion is not a factual basis to prove anything. It is a subjective thought that guides you personally and while perception is reality for an individual that does not make it so for everyone else.

Just because you PERCEIVE something does not make it factual in nature. You can perceive the color blue as grey if you're color blind, that doesn't make it a factual truth though, it merely means that to your perception it is grey. See the difference?

[N0MAD]

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

Funny everyone who posted above you was wearing a Founders, Phoenix or both badges...

[Atheus]

Tesunie, on 25 June 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

So... Let me get this right. We need to PROVE you wrong, but you don't have to prove YOURSELF correct to start off with?

You got me there. I've essentially shifted the burden of proof. Good work recognizing it, but I've only got so much energy I'm willing to put in to this issue, which is why I put it together in this sort of "bring your own evidence" format. The single assumption that I have absolutely no evidence supporting (aside from the guy who basically said as much earlier in the thread, though that's anecdotal) is that some players will do better in clan mechs. If you can't accept that assumption, then indeed you can reject the entire argument as unsubstantiated. To completely marginalize the argument that clan mechs are pay to win, you need to present some sort of evidence that the above assumption is false, though.

Tesunie, on 25 June 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

Someone does not grasp the point of proving a thesis... (And, we have been providing proof. We pulled out stock mech stats. That isn't even out customized mechs for better efficiency...)

Your stock mechs stats are pretty lame evidence, especially considering that there are other stats in another thread showing clan mechs averaging basically double all your stats. I just don't see what you think you're proving.

Edited by Atheus, 25 June 2014 - 07:26 PM.

[Sandpit]

RussianWolf, on 25 June 2014 - 07:16 PM, said:

Sorry, the title doesn't say "PROOF that SOME clan tech and SOME hero mechs are P2W". If you take your own premise that to be P2W the mechs have to be Stronger. You lack any PROOF. You have provided circumstances and assumptions, nothing that actually proves anything.

Exactly

I just figure at this point he's arguing just to be doing it. There's no proof that he nor anyone else has provided that shows a player in a clan mech has an advantage over a free player let alone that players can pay to win. If that were the case they would provide evidence that shows how a paid player can spend some cash and stomp all the free players.

Good example given that ideology?

Player A starts playing MWO 1 year ago and is a long-time Btech fan. They quickly pick up the nuances of the game and builds and do very well. They become a top tier player and never spend a dime.

Player B starts playing yesterday, spends $100, grabs a couple of hero mechs and some premium time.

So according to OP, player B should beat Player A the majority of, if not all, the time. That simply isn't ture and that alone actually proves that the game is NOT p2w

OP, take note, THAT is how you provide evidence to prove something.

[RussianWolf]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

You got me there. I've essentially shifted the burden of proof. Good work recognizing it, but I've only got so much energy I'm willing to put in to this issue, which is why I put it together in this sort of "bring your own evidence" format. The single assumption that I have absolutely no evidence supporting is that some players will do better in clan mechs. If you can't accept that assumption, then indeed you can reject the entire argument as unsubstantiated. To completely marginalize the argument that clan mechs are pay to win, you need to present some sort of evidence that the above assumption is false, though.

Actually when you come in saying "I have PROOF" and then can't provide ACTUAL PROOF, you lose. You can't disprove something that has yet to be proven.

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Exactly

I just figure at this point he's arguing just to be doing it. There's no proof that he nor anyone else has provided that shows a player in a clan mech has an advantage over a free player let alone that players can pay to win. If that were the case they would provide evidence that shows how a paid player can spend some cash and stomp all the free players.

And he doing a piss poor job of debating it at that. My wife does better and she gets frustrated and worked up too easily.

[Spades Kincaid]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

What needs to be supported is that for a given player, if they can do better in clan mechs than they do in IS mechs, upgrading to clan would be a paid advantage.

This is where you are fundamentally wrong. You were fine in your OP, up to the point where you moved to the Clan mechs. You made a debatable case for the DS being pay-to-win. That it fit the necessary criteria.

- The item in question provides an advantage. ie - it is inherently superior.
- It can only be aquired via $

Pay to win has nothing to do with how good a particular player is with a weapon (mech). It has everything to do with if that weapon (mech) is outright better than any version of weapon (mech) that doesn't require $ to obtain. Pay-to-win is in the superiority of the item(s) in question. Not in suiting a player's preferences, playstyle or skillset.

If Joe really likes the Gridiron, and he does really well with it. Better than with any other mech in the game. That does not in itself make the Gridiron pay-to-win.


If your definition of pay-to-win involves player skill/preferences in any fashion, then you have a functionally crippled definition of pay-to-win.

Player skill is always removed from the discussion. Player X and Player Y are = in skill is the default premise worked from. Player Y is Player X's clone if you prefer. If Player X and Player Y are both given options A, B, C, D (free) and E (only for $), is an advantage conferred to one of them if they use E? That is the definition of pay-to-win.

So in order to assert pay-to-win for the Clan mechs, yes, you DO have to assert that the Clan mechs confer a direct advantage over IS mechs in and of themselves. And you'd be expected to state your case in quantifying that advantage.
(As you did for the DS in your OP. Agree or disagree, you made an arguable case.)

[Turboferret]

Just checking in to see if you've uninstalled yet or not.

COMPLEAT YE DESTINY. UNINSTALL.

[Atheus]

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

I just figure at this point he's arguing just to be doing it. There's no proof that he nor anyone else has provided that shows a player in a clan mech has an advantage over a free player let alone that players can pay to win. If that were the case they would provide evidence that shows how a paid player can spend some cash and stomp all the free players.

Nope, I'm afraid you're back to exaggerating things. Nobody needs to show that a player can spend some cash and stomp all the free players. That's absurd. This is the whole reason this thread goes to crazy town and back for a dozen pages. All that needs to be shown is that an individual player performs better in clan tech. That's all. There was a guy earlier in the thread who disagreed with my premises of P2W, but thought that he was doing better in his clan mechs than he ever did in his IS mechs. I commend his honesty. If he's right, then he basically proved the argument. If you think he's wrong, well then you don't have to accept that as proof, but you do need to decide for yourself what sort of evidence you would accept.

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Good example given that ideology?

Player A starts playing MWO 1 year ago and is a long-time Btech fan. They quickly pick up the nuances of the game and builds and do very well. They become a top tier player and never spend a dime.

Player B starts playing yesterday, spends $100, grabs a couple of hero mechs and some premium time.

So according to OP, player B should beat Player A the majority of, if not all, the time. That simply isn't ture and that alone actually proves that the game is NOT p2w

OP, take note, THAT is how you provide evidence to prove something.

I like that your scenario includes background info like how Player A feels about Btech.

You realize this isn't evidence, right? It's just a hypothetical scenario with a false conclusion. Why did you decide that player B beats player A, or vice-versa? Were we supposed to assume they had equal skill, or not? What does this demonstrate? I don't think I'll be refining my debate skills using your example, sorry.

[Turboferret]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 07:42 PM, said:

Nope, I'm afraid you're back to exaggerating things. Nobody needs to show that a player can spend some cash and stomp all the free players. That's absurd. This is the whole reason this thread goes to crazy town and back for a dozen pages. All that needs to be shown is that an individual player performs better in clan tech. That's all. There was a guy earlier in the thread who disagreed with my premises of P2W, but thought that he was doing better in his clan mechs than he ever did in his IS mechs. I commend his honesty. If he's right, then he basically proved the argument. If you think he's wrong, well then you don't have to accept that as proof, but you do need to decide for yourself what sort of evidence you would accept.




I like that your scenario includes background info like how Player A feels about Btech.

You realize this isn't evidence, right? It's just a hypothetical scenario with a false conclusion. Why did you decide that player B beats player A, or vice-versa? Were we supposed to assume they had equal skill, or not? What does this demonstrate? I don't think I'll be refining my debate skills using your example, sorry.

Your argument doesn't make sense because the logical conclusion must be that good computers are P2W.

You don't really enjoy this game anymore, just uninstall.

[Tesunie]

Atheus, on 25 June 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

You got me there. I've essentially shifted the burden of proof. Good work recognizing it, but I've only got so much energy I'm willing to put in to this issue, which is why I put it together in this sort of "bring your own evidence" format. The single assumption that I have absolutely no evidence supporting (aside from the guy who basically said as much earlier in the thread, though that's anecdotal) is that some players will do better in clan mechs. If you can't accept that assumption, then indeed you can reject the entire argument as unsubstantiated. To completely marginalize the argument that clan mechs are pay to win, you need to present some sort of evidence that the above assumption is false, though.


Your stock mechs stats are pretty lame evidence, especially considering that there are other stats in another thread showing clan mechs averaging basically double all your stats. I just don't see what you think you're proving.

We can't disprove (though we are already doing a good job of it) a case that hasn't even been proven yet...
You need to provide data to support your claim, especially if you are "claiming" to have "proof" that "Clans and Hero mechs are P2W". So far... this thread was off topic in the original post in and of itself, as it dealt very little with any proof, and inserted a lot of assumptions and opinions.

Sadly, I already HAVE provided SOME evidence that your "above" assumption is false. I've already actually proven my case, with my stock IS Hunchback 4J stats. If I can pull those numbers with a mech with only 2 tons of ammo, single heat sinks, no endo and a slow engine that can't even fit in 10 heat sinks inside it... imagine what I can do with double heat sinks, space saving endo, more ammo, and a larger engine...


*Flips sack bag upside down and nothing comes out* I'm starting to run out of troll feed here... I think we might have to continue this after I go get some more, cause you certainly ain't listening to the evidence already being placed in front of you. (Or would you like me to post my customized mech stats as well to not just punch holes in your concept, but melt it to the ground?)

Still also waiting for you to prove that clan mechs are P2W and always win a match when someone rides into one. (And also prove that Clan mechs will always only be available for cash and never be free, instead of being available by the end of next month...)

[N0MAD]

I gues the simple question is..
Can i use Clans to win, answer is yes.. is that a false statement?
Can i buy Clans with ingame currency, answer is no.. is that a false statement?(question is not can i buy them in future)

[Mystere]

Tesunie, on 25 June 2014 - 07:00 PM, said:

So... Let me get this right. We need to PROVE you wrong, but you don't have to prove YOURSELF correct to start off with?

Someone does not grasp the point of proving a thesis... (And, we have been providing proof. We pulled out stock mech stats. That isn't even out customized mechs for better efficiency...)

Yep, that is his concept of "proof". So I shudder to think what he thinks an "analysis" actually looks like.

Edited by Mystere, 25 June 2014 - 07:52 PM.