513 replies to this topic

[Atheus]

qki, on 26 June 2014 - 01:02 AM, said:

No, because you are fundamentally wrong.

Your argument is based on the assumption that players will follow some non-existent rule that you made up, and that they know nothing about. It is entirely subjective, and relies on the absurd notion, that you (or player 1) should win.

Spoiler

Your whole argument was that while A is better than B, and B is better than C, the C guys started using premium D, to beat the B guys, and if they couldn't use D, they would have to keep using C and lose like they were supposed to.

That's just nonsense. Who says they HAVE to keep using a less effective tactic? They are free to use A at any time, which is even better than D.

In fact - if you were planning to win, your goal would be to beat the A guys, since for all you care, EVERYONE might be an A guy - there is no rule in the game that says they can't - just your assumption that they won't. And from the perspective of someone who is preparing to beat the A team, it matters not if the enemy is using A, or the premium B+ which is worse than A. Hell - as far as he is concerned, his "premium" opponents are using a tactic inferior to the one he was already prepared to beat - his job just got easier


And no - I'm not implying that everyone HAS to use the vastly superior A, when using B or C is much more satisfying to them. They are free to use B and C. The problem is with people, who knowingly, and deliberately use a weaker tactic, and EXPECT the resto of the world not to use the stronger tactic against them.

You get hung up on people using a premium tactic more powerful than the one they were using before, when all this time, they could have been using a vastly more powerful tactic, and you'd be doubly screwed, no lube.

Your scenario adopts the premise that there is no cash-only upgrade to weapon A, which is not necessarily true. You're just trying to disprove a portion of my argument, though, so that's fine. I have actually already explained the answer to this, but you want clarification on the "imaginary rule" that people are following

"Imaginary rule" is not a good term, and that is the root cause of your problem. You are asking why we should care what Laser guy does when he might theoretically be stronger using pop-tarts. For one, that is just an assumption. Some players choose not to use pop-tarts because they dislike the play style, for others they choose not to use it because they find they are more effective with something else, like LRM's or lasers or brawling or whatever. You yourself seem to be an example of this type of player. So while yes, if you only look at the very top tier competitive play it appears that pop tart heavies/assaults are the strongest weapon, followed by laser/machine gun lights, that is not going to be true for every player due to skill differences, or just preference. The "preference" term is what you're trying to make into an "imaginary rule". If he prefers a weapon that he has a lower win potential with than some other weapon, what does it matter if he upgrades that weapon with cash? The answer is that he's not doing that in a vacuum. He's on a battlefield full of guys trying to use those same types of weapons to have fun and win, but he gets to have an exclusive advantage with that system that certain people seem to like.

With clan, though, you also have the risk of meta-shift. Some Clan weapons (ballistics) have completely different characteristics that may lead to them being used in ways that have no easy parallel in IS of just saying "upgraded weapon C". If those methods turn out to be effective, then you can't use this line of reasoning at all, because you don't know what to call your new options. Ultimately you just have to look at your results and estimate based on that.

Which is exactly what you did.

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

If you go there, then you are looking at "proof" right now - my nova is by far my most successful mech. Something just clicked right with the build, and I am getting better results with it. Partially on account that the mechs I played prior to clan release were my LRM30 (twin artemis15) cat and my MLP/AC20 Yen Lo Wang - hardly the most competetive machines out there, but my favourite mechs to play.

This is you, saying your Nova is by far your most successful mech. For whatever reason, because of your unique attributes, you do the best with your Nova. I guess this is why you're trying to come up with an angle that can make it appear you didn't pay for an advantage. Apparently you think that just because you may theoretically be able to improve if you learned how to pilot a DS or a Timberwolf better you might have a higher chance of winning that changes things, but no. You are you. You play what you play, just like everyone else in the game, and your most successful mech is behind a paywall, just like the real life MWO's "Weapon A" (DS/Ember) has been before the Clan release.

[Atheus]

Sandpit, on 26 June 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Lol I asked the op to define what he meant a long time ago. That was answered with "that's like trying to define the word "is"
That should have been the first clue lol

Anyone who doesn't want to give a clear definition of their meaning simply wants to keep it vague in order to prevent anyone else from disputing their claims. Happens in court all the time. That's how I knew early on what he was trying to do

Oh really? If I recall it wasn't quite like that.

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 09:02 PM, said:

It's not a party line, it's an argument, and your example does not hit the mark. I am saying very simply something that is logically sound. If someone purchases something that bolsters their chance at winning that can not be obtained using a free currency then they are indeed paying for an advantage. Attempting to deny that they have paid for an advantage would be dishonest, or at the very least double-think since they internally recognize that the thing they bought is actually providing them an advantage. If they do not feel the item provides them an advantage, or don't realize it, then they may be innocent, or ignorant of paying to win.

Premium time does indeed provide you an advantage, but it does not provide you with anything that would translate to you being able to win more often against people without premium time.

Sandpit, on 24 June 2014 - 09:20 PM, said:

Ok define bolsters. Not a legalistic definition. Define specifically what bolsters a chance for winning

Atheus, on 24 June 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

That sounds a little bit like "define 'is'". I really don't have that kind of patience. What are you driving at here?

You want my definition for bolsters? How much do you want to be pampered here? I'd like you to define winning. I'd like you define specifically. I'd like you to define pay. Just because I decided not to honor your ridiculous request doesn't mean you've somehow accomplished some sort of victory worth bragging about.

Likewise people asking me for my definition of pay to win can just look at the original post, as anyone who is responding in this thread should have done before they opened their mouth.

Edited by Atheus, 26 June 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[Atheus]

Burakumin1979, on 26 June 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Sorry, but the entire P2W argument boils down to a very simple concept that accounts for pilot skill while clearly identifying something as P2W.

"Duplication of Results"

When looking at a game mechanic, can the result be duplicated by something not for sale?

Case 1: Victor-DS
Test Standard: A DS can produce 2k damage as a jump sniper.
Test Question: Can any other version of the Victor do that?
Test Answer: Of course it can. (Utilization of cover, timing, tactical movement - all subjective and player defined.)
Verdict: Not P2W as results can be duplicated with non purchasable assets.

Case 2: Golden LRMS of Doom
Test Standard: GLRMoD cause 5 damage per missile that hits.
Test Question: Can normal LRMS cause 5 damage per missile that hits?
Test Answer: No.
Verdict: GLRMoDs are P2W as their results can not be duplicated by non purchasable assets.

Your test standard for the Victor is complete BS. This is a false equivalence.

[Fut]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

You want my definition for bolsters? How much do you want to be pampered here? I'd like you to define winning. I'd like you define specifically. I'd like you to define pay. Just because I decided not to engage in a certain part of your nonsensical discussion doesn't mean you've somehow accomplished some sort of victory worth bragging about.

What an asinine response...
You used a term, and then proceeded to dance all around instead of just explaining what you meant.

Bolster: support or strengthen; prop up.
(How ******* hard was that?)

Here's the thing though, Clan Mechs might have some attributes that can bolster their chance of winning, but they also have attributes that can be considered a hindrance. This sort of just makes them different from IS, as opposed to outright better than IS.

Of course, you completely ignore things that are less appealing than on the IS Mechs, because those things would completely ruin your argument that Clan = P2W.

Edited by Fut, 26 June 2014 - 11:34 AM.

[Zervziel]

Atheus seems clinically incapable of cutting to the chase. Questions are answered with more questions or rhetoric couched in entire text bricks.

[Ngamok]

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.

Adiuvo already stated in another thread that if there was no tonnage limits, they would have brought HGN-733Cs mainly for their more armor. Also, if the VTR-DS is so great, why wouldn't HoL go into the cave on Forest Colony? If there wasn't a rule put in place to avoid the same scenario, HoL still wouldn't go in because again, because at that point, the JM6s had a clear advantage over the VTRs and CTFs at that range and defense. Since your title claims you have proof, all I see is Hand-Wavium here.

[Joseph Mallan]

As Clan mechs will (probably) be open to C-bill purchase long before the game is actually launched. How is it they will be Pay 2 Win???

[Atheus]

Fut, on 26 June 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

What an asinine response...
You used a term, and then proceeded to dance all around instead of just explaining what you meant.

Bolster: support or strengthen; prop up.
(How ******* hard was that?)

Here's the thing though, Clan Mechs might have some attributes that can bolster their chance of winning, but they also have attributes that can be considered a hindrance. This sort of just makes them different from IS, as opposed to outright better than IS.

Of course, you completely ignore things that are less appealing than on the IS Mechs, because those things would completely ruin your argument that Clan = P2W.

Yes, it is quite easy to define bolster. This is probably because there is no ambiguity about what this word means. Requesting the definition of a word that doesn't have an ambiguous meaning is, as you put it, asinine.

[Vercinaigh]

Ghost Badger, on 26 June 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

Actually, with the upcoming changes to Jumpjets, you may see more of the Victor 9S.

Right now, the Dragonslayer is considered "superior" because of the closer convergence between the ballistics in it's right arm, and right torso, and the ability to use it's left side as a shield.

With the JJ changes coming down the pipe, though, people might find that they are saving more boost for their touchdown, so they need to line up that shot quicker, and having BOTH the ballistics AND the PPC's in their arms may allow them to get that shot off faster, and take less leg damage.

Who knows. Pros and Cons. I use the Dragonslayer because of the C-Bills and the shield-side...I don't play nearly as much as I used to and that pile of C-Bills is comparatively small these days

No.....toggle armlock = instant convergence of arm to torso.....arm mounted weapons have all kinds of convergence issues and typically take -longer- to beam on a target...

Joseph Mallan, on 26 June 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

As Clan mechs will (probably) be open to C-bill purchase long before the game is actually launched. How is it they will be Pay 2 Win???

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

[Fut]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Blah blah blah.
Avoiding the actual comments.

You know, it's quite easy to spot somebody who realizes that they have a shite argument, they tend to completely ignore large portions of the responses they receive.

[Burakumin1979]

Alright, then give me a standard based on something that the DS can do that is not affected, at all, by a variable that is user controlled, that actually affects the jump sniping performance of the DS, that other purchasable mechs can not.

[Crixus316]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

Ahh.. I come back to this...



And there you have the nonsense idea that there is a distinction between those 3 things still floating around after 18 pages. This is the whole reason this thread exists. The guys who want to debate me on the subject are happy to let you guys wallow in your uselessness because in their mind it's fine if you don't know what pay to win means, and as a result you can never offer up any useful contribution to a discussion of what to do about an actual pay to win mechanic, since you'll be totally hung up on the idea that it's not pay to win because eventually the pay to win stuff will become available for free, or because (hilariously) the thing doesn't automatically make you win. (Whoa another mega sentence! Cower before my sentence-paragraphs!)

You other guys that are waiting on a response, we'll see. You may in fact wear me down by repeating the same things over and over again, and chances are you could answer your own questions by reading the first 18 pages of this thread. In fact, most of the time the answer is in the original post, but I'll come take a look at your situation a little bit later on.

Since my opinion differs from yours, you completely dismiss it. I don't see the problem with killing clan mechs, and I don't need a clan mech to do it. Its not my fault you have difficulties. Maybe a little more practice, and less typing. But someone has to provide target practice for noobs and scrubs, might as well be you.


Your right. I don't know what your idea of P2W is, neither does anyone else.

Edited by Mr Bigglesworth, 26 June 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[Sandpit]

Atheus, on 26 June 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

Oh really? If I recall it wasn't quite like that.




You want my definition for bolsters? How much do you want to be pampered here? I'd like you to define winning. I'd like you define specifically. I'd like you to define pay. Just because I decided not to honor your ridiculous request doesn't mean you've somehow accomplished some sort of victory worth bragging about.

Likewise people asking me for my definition of pay to win can just look at the original post, as anyone who is responding in this thread should have done before they opened their mouth.

Lol
Thank you for proving my point.
There's no "victory" to be had. Just responses to your inaccurate claims so that new players understand it's not a p2w system.

In your own thread with other players responding
(No clan mechs here btw so you can't use that strawman to invalidate my statement)
that disagree with you. So you are in an extreme minority, count the replies to your thread for proof, with the vast majority disagreeing with you on a subjective discussion.

In other words. Put to a vote on whether people believe this game is p2w, you would lose. Which means, according to your peers, you quite simply are wrong. So you can continue along that path all you like but the bottom line is that your opinion is not accepted as the voice of your fellow gamers in the community. Essentially you're trying to tell hundreds if not thousands who disagree with you that they are wrong.

The public opinion of the community is that you're wrong. When you can show more supporters than detractors, you will show that the community agrees. Until then the mahority of the people that play this game disagree which invalidates your claim.

We're not talking a.minor majority either. I'd be willing to bet it's about 95-5 split. That's speculation of course but your entire argument is philosophical and vague anyhow.

[Dolph Hoskins]

What a wealth of knowledge and learning to be gotten from this thread!

Currency, and what it can do for you. The building blocks of business and trade.

[Ngamok]

Roland, on 26 June 2014 - 08:37 AM, said:

I just read through that and it doesn't really seem to combat the notion of clan mechs being P2W, other than effectively making the suggestion that they do not convey an advantage. While that is certainly the case for the majority of clan mechs, there appear to be a few outliers which can be perceived as being advantageous compared to mechs which are currently available for in-game currency.

I applaud you in you though in your recognition that the idea of being available for in-game currency at some point in the future does not actually impact the determination of P2W currently. Many do not seem willing or able to grasp that idea.

June 17th to November 12th (for C-Bill Timber Wolf) is just shy of 5 months. Or 3 months if we are talking about the Dire Wolf. I actually wished they would do it a little more hurry up but if they got them out quicker then what? They either won't have mechs out fast enough and people start complaining, or they start releasing more MC only hero mechs and people start calling it cash grab / N.O.P.E. Do you think they can catch a break from the forumites around here?

[Green Mamba]

I thought Game was Launched Back Last September

[Sandpit]

Green Mamba, on 26 June 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

I thought Game was Launched Back Last September

he was making a funny

You have to keep an eye on Joe, he's a jokester like that.

A good portion of the community feels and has felt like the official "launch" was nothing more than an announcement on the webpage and a small drunken party for some rather dubious fans. Hence his launch joke

[Green Mamba]

Yep.... but I do know him and sometimes he is serious

[AlmightyAeng]

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

"Imaginary rule" is not a good term, and that is the root cause of your problem.

I don't agree with the rest of your argument, but you get points for using "imaginary" AND "root" in the same sentence without it involving math at all.

[Atheus]

Sandpit, on 26 June 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

Ok couldn't resist lol
Last one though

OP is trying to make a legalistic argument. This is not a court of law.

This is a court of public opinion. Everything op talks about is subjective. Perceived advantages and hypothetical situations without ever having even tested the equipment he's claiming are p2w.

I make this distinction just to make the following point.

Loom through your thread op. Look through every other p2w thread. As a court of public opinion it should be quite clear that yhe vast majority disagree with p2w assertions. That's all that really should be needed to shoot down any p2w argument.

When more people agree with p2w than disagree then you have more validation. Until then it is not true because the community as a whole disagrees

Psst Russ (THIS is how you do it)
::drops mic::

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.

Sandpit, on 26 June 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Lol
Thank you for proving my point.
There's no "victory" to be had. Just responses to your inaccurate claims so that new players understand it's not a p2w system.

In your own thread with other players responding
(No clan mechs here btw so you can't use that strawman to invalidate my statement)
that disagree with you. So you are in an extreme minority, count the replies to your thread for proof, with the vast majority disagreeing with you on a subjective discussion.

In other words. Put to a vote on whether people believe this game is p2w, you would lose. Which means, according to your peers, you quite simply are wrong. So you can continue along that path all you like but the bottom line is that your opinion is not accepted as the voice of your fellow gamers in the community. Essentially you're trying to tell hundreds if not thousands who disagree with you that they are wrong.

The public opinion of the community is that you're wrong. When you can show more supporters than detractors, you will show that the community agrees. Until then the mahority of the people that play this game disagree which invalidates your claim.

We're not talking a.minor majority either. I'd be willing to bet it's about 95-5 split. That's speculation of course but your entire argument is philosophical and vague anyhow.

Responses to my "inaccurate claims" would lead to victory if they could actually demonstrate that they were inaccurate.

If you read the whole thread you have now seen two separate critics openly state that they think their best mech is a clan mech, yet still want to argue that clan can't be pay to win despite their own claim turning the argument into a tautology. Somehow when I point this out I'm making a straw man? That's not what a straw man is. You are making a false accusation.

You've pointed out that I have not responded to every single argument leveled against me. I'll need to clone myself at least once before I'll have enough man hours to handle everything, so temper your expectations. Also realize that this sort of thread is going to inspire people who disagree to take a stand. I fully expected this thread to be fully populated with critics.

You finish off with more appeal to the masses fallacy. Nice work.

Edited by Atheus, 26 June 2014 - 12:31 PM.