310 replies to this topic

[Revis Volek]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

Sure i will bite.

You do not get an advantage with the Purifier over other mechs that are available for cbills.

It is the best option on a bad chassis I don't think that is a debate.

If you want to expand or selectively apply based on your views what level of this or that needs to be accounted for instead of keeping things simple and applicable for everyone, then you are just arguing about what is in your head instead of a tangible fact.

"But there are no cbill ST omni pods with E hardpoints for my Kit Fox" said the pug.

Edited by Revis Volek, 31 January 2017 - 05:30 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

MacClearly, on 30 January 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

Really? That is a huge leap off a bridge in logic there.

Winning in this context has shifted to mean many things to many people but the underlying 'scope' is if this mech is better than mechs that can be bought for cbills. Others have argued no, it is what makes it the best Kit Fox that we are considering.

However this a game where you have many choices to complete objectives or 'win'. That is substantive and quantifiable by in game mechanics. I don't pull the 'victory' or 'defeat' screen at the end of a match out of my a**.

It isn't a bridge at all.

The definition of "winning" is not being expanded because it neither inherently implies a scope nor explicitly outlines one in this context. You might have fooled other people in this debate into believing your schtick about it being expanded through attrition, but not me. Go re-read the OP for yourself, you might even be drinking your own Kool-Aid at this point.

No, the reality is that you, yourself, have chosen to constrain it to mean "completing a match with your team declared the victor according to the game rules." That choice is arbitrary, and personal. There is no basis for it that has more fundamental authority to an alternative basis (i.e. I can win fights against other 'Mechs, I can win C-bills, I can win at some personal challenge, even if my team is the loser, and those are all also quantifiable by the game mechanics).

So, I say again:

If there is this thing in the game that lots of people like, and there is a superior version of it behind a paywall that allows you to win more fights, it is pay-2-win. Any attempt to constrain the scope of that statement to something narrower is an attempt to get us to accept thinking and speaking in macros. That is a trait neither I nor the world at large has any use for. Locking superior pods and variants behind a paywall is on exactly the same level as Gold Ammo in World of Tanks, which is one of the go-to references for exemplifying a "Pay-2-Win" scheme. Yes, it is still Pay-2-Win even when you use it in a low-tier tank.

Quote

Not sure even at this point if you are arguing a point or just taking issue that I am not buying an argument if it is backed by expanding the definition of a term to fit their argument. Do you have an opinion on the issue or are you just interested in trying to argue with me?

Yes.

[a gaijin]

Pay-to-win is not "pay to be better."

If I pay money to win, I had better WIN, guaranteed, or I'll get my $$ back and report the company to the Better Business Bureau.

[Revis Volek]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

It isn't a bridge at all.

The definition of "winning" is not being expanded because it neither inherently implies a scope nor explicitly outlines one in this context. You might have fooled other people in this debate into believing your schtick about it being expanded through attrition, but not me. Go re-read the OP for yourself, you might even be drinking your own Kool-Aid at this point.

No, the reality is that you, yourself, have chosen to constrain it to mean "completing a match with your team declared the victor according to the game rules." That choice is arbitrary, and personal. There is no basis for it that has more fundamental authority to an alternative basis (i.e. I can win fights against other 'Mechs, I can win C-bills, I can win at some personal challenge, even if my team is the loser, and those are all also quantifiable by the game mechanics).

So, I say again:

If there is this thing in the game that lots of people like, and there is a superior version of it behind a paywall that allows you to win more fights, it is pay-2-win. Any attempt to constrain the scope of that statement to something narrower is an attempt to get us to accept thinking and speaking in macros. That is a trait neither I nor the world at large has any use for. Locking superior pods and variants behind a paywall is on exactly the same level as Gold Ammo in World of Tanks, which is one of the go-to references for exemplifying a "Pay-2-Win" scheme. Yes, it is still Pay-2-Win even when you use it in a low-tier tank.



Yes.

Really i can stop now...

Yeonne got to my point a lot faster then i did hahaha.

p2w is what it is, some of you just dont understand it.

Edited by Revis Volek, 31 January 2017 - 07:01 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Star Commander Horse, on 31 January 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

Pay-to-win is not "pay to be better."

If I pay money to win, I had better WIN, guaranteed, or I'll get my $$ back and report the company to the Better Business Bureau.

"Win" is arbitrarily defined, though.

Win at what? Win at the game objective? Win your little fights against other 'Mechs? Win more C-bills? Win more component destructions? Deal more average damage regardless of match outcome?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

Yes.

Best answer

[MacClearly]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 05:30 PM, said:

It isn't a bridge at all.

The definition of "winning" is not being expanded because it neither inherently implies a scope nor explicitly outlines one in this context. You might have fooled other people in this debate into believing your schtick about it being expanded through attrition, but not me. Go re-read the OP for yourself, you might even be drinking your own Kool-Aid at this point.

No, the reality is that you, yourself, have chosen to constrain it to mean "completing a match with your team declared the victor according to the game rules." That choice is arbitrary, and personal. There is no basis for it that has more fundamental authority to an alternative basis (i.e. I can win fights against other 'Mechs, I can win C-bills, I can win at some personal challenge, even if my team is the loser, and those are all also quantifiable by the game mechanics).

So, I say again:

If there is this thing in the game that lots of people like, and there is a superior version of it behind a paywall that allows you to win more fights, it is pay-2-win. Any attempt to constrain the scope of that statement to something narrower is an attempt to get us to accept thinking and speaking in macros. That is a trait neither I nor the world at large has any use for. Locking superior pods and variants behind a paywall is on exactly the same level as Gold Ammo in World of Tanks, which is one of the go-to references for exemplifying a "Pay-2-Win" scheme. Yes, it is still Pay-2-Win even when you use it in a low-tier tank.



Yes.

You think that winning conditions in this game are up for debate. I think you are foolish for saying so. Even if we are only talking about personal performance since killing mechs and getting a good deal of damage contributes to winning in this game.

While you are trying to run around in circles and obfuscate something as simple as what can or may or would be interpreted as winning in this game, there are set rules and conditions that are easily and universally applied for success. While an individual may decide kdr and wlr are unimportant to matches played, that individuals opinion would be arbitrary not what is commonly known to be what makes a person win or successful in the game. It is not a schtick here, you saying each individuals interpretation of what winning or success is and that, that is somehow quantifiable or gives your position any credence is absolute nonsense. I do however enjoy your command on vocabulary, it is very refreshing.

'Any attempt to constrain the scope of that statement to something narrower is an attempt to get us to accept thinking and speaking in macros.'
No I am saying you are expanding pay to win to mean pay to have the best chassis of a particular mech. I am also saying implicitly that because there are better options that are not behind a paywall, it cannot be considered pay to win. Golden ammo is not a direct comparison here because you are still taking about increasing damage potential (presumably as I am not familiar with the game) when I am saying that there are two mechs that have the same ability to mount high lasers and have equal firepower. There is probably more that two but since you seem to love to try and bury your point through complicated circle jerking I am keeping it simple.

So here we are arguing. You somehow have convinced yourself you are winning and that I should accept your personal definition of what winning is in MWO or what success is. You also think that I should ignore what pay to win means literally and expand its definition to include being the best option for a particular chassis, even though there are equal if not better options available in the game for free. I am absolutely not going to accept you personal definition of things. Ever.

So every time you say that the Purifier is pay to win because....
My answer ever single time will be; no, you can buy and Artic Cheetah for cbills.

Revis Volek, on 31 January 2017 - 05:34 PM, said:

Really i cant stop now...

Yeonne got to my point a lot faster then i did hahaha.

p2w is what it is, some of you just dont understand it.

No some of you want to expand what it means to suit your argument.

Either that or you are not understanding english....

Edited by MacClearly, 31 January 2017 - 06:29 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

You think that winning conditions in this game are up for debate. I think you are foolish for saying so. Even if we are only talking about personal performance since killing mechs and getting a good deal of damage contributes to winning in this game.

The song of somebody who has lost the argument before it began.

Your second sentence right there proves the point I am trying to make and you do not even realize it.

[a gaijin]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 05:45 PM, said:

"Win" is arbitrarily defined, though.

Win at what? Win at the game objective? Win your little fights against other 'Mechs? Win more C-bills? Win more component destructions? Deal more average damage regardless of match outcome?

Yeonne, that's a fair enough argument for a game like MWO and I'm glad you laid out some examples

Winning in MWO is:

• Making Over 600 damage every match+(1 Kill Minimum or 3 or more KMMD)+being on winning team.
  
• Making over 600 damage every match+2 Kills Minimum+being Last Player Alive on losing team (last killed) because your PSR and stats will not suffer.

Anything less is unacceptable.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Star Commander Horse, on 31 January 2017 - 06:41 PM, said:

Yeonne, that's a fair enough argument for a game like MWO and I'm glad you laid out some examples

Winning in MWO is:

• Making Over 600 damage every match+(1 Kill Minimum or 3 or more KMMD)+being on winning team.
  
• Making over 600 damage every match+2 Kills Minimum+being Last Player Alive on losing team (last killed) because your PSR and stats will not suffer.

Anything less is unacceptable.

That's winning as defined by solo queue, not by team standards....in other words your definition of winning is still specific.

[G4LV4TR0N]

What about my definition of winning that is about winning competitive tournaments and leagues? Because end game scores can be farmed and it has nothing to do with actual winning?

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 31 January 2017 - 07:31 PM.

[Deathlike]

G4LV4TR0N, on 31 January 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

After reading all of this I came to simple conclusion:


People lose in Kit Fox because they don't know how to play Kit Fox. The Purifier is just an excuse. Because simply, as an owner of Purifier and every other Kit Fox I can run any variant. And I can win with any build, even when running four flamers or max LRM's. If you understand that MWO as game is not best in depicting Battletech universe and Kit Fox is a lore mech just like Urbanmech is lore mech, you will understand that having fun is more important than winning. And when we talk about competitive gaming, where winning matters, as I pointed out - I am yet to see any Kit Fox there. I've seen some unsuccessful Adder attempts but no Kit Fox. Perhaps in future, after new skill tree?

lol, so cute, but clueless.

G4LV4TR0N, on 31 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

What about my definition of winning that is about winning competitive tournaments and leagues? Because end game scores can be farmed and it has nothing to do with actual winning?

If there's any edge is to be used in comp play, then it'll be used.

If the option that increases your chances to win aka "gain that edge" (usually in the form of increased power) is strictly behind a paywall (spending real money for it), then it's Pay To Win.

It's not that complicated.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[MacClearly]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 06:39 PM, said:

The song of somebody who has lost the argument before it began.

Your second sentence right there proves the point I am trying to make and you do not even realize it.

No you are grasping.

Someone could play baseball and consider how far he slid along the grass as all that matter and weigh his success metres travelled. Most people however would judge his success on how many runs he batted in or other contributions that he made to help his team win. It is that simple, but you are insisting that his misguided perception should count for something.

As far as realisation, you are struggling with not having a point. You are arguing that the best variant of a not so good mech, being behind a paywall is wrong. You are framing that with it being pay to win based on your misrepresentation of what pay to win means. You could be arguing why putting the best variant behind a paywall is wrong, but it appears you are trying to stretch the definition so that its relative 'offensivenss' be increased.

Modern feminists and sjw's do this kind of bs all the time. Marketing soap designed for men? Perpetuating the patriarchy...oppression through soap!!!

If you were to try and explain or describe why you think having the best variant paywalled is wrong, you may be able to get somewhere. Instead you have wrapped it up in what is considered the most egregious offense in this horrible business model. In doing so, you are changing (trying to) what pay to win means. This is not a way to even have a point because you can't play fast and loose and make what you think fits.

[MacClearly]

G4LV4TR0N, on 31 January 2017 - 07:28 PM, said:

What about my definition of winning that is about winning competitive tournaments and leagues? Because end game scores can be farmed and it has nothing to do with actual winning?

Personally I would say what you are describing is a measure of success at the game. Winning being defined at the match level and not the Charlie Sheen level...

[MacClearly]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

If there's any edge is to be used in comp play, then it'll be used.

If the option that increases your chances to win aka "gain that edge" (usually in the form of increased power) is strictly behind a paywall (spending real money for it), then it's Pay To Win.

It's not that complicated.

Great! Since you can get the Artic Cheetah for free and have an edge over the Purifier, the Purifier is totally not pay to win.

Thanks for the simple clarification.

[Deathlike]

MacClearly, on 31 January 2017 - 08:19 PM, said:

Great! Since you can get the Artic Cheetah for free and have an edge over the Purifier, the Purifier is totally not pay to win.

Thanks for the simple clarification.

That's not how the math works.

If for some reason the Kitfox was ever the "new Light meta", then the Purifier would literally be P2W by definition. It just becomes a lot more self-evident.

Just because something gets a power boost for just existing, doesn't mean it avoids the definition due to other things being superior relatively speaking. When the power levels change depending on whether you spend money or not, that's P2W.

Edited by Deathlike, 31 January 2017 - 08:23 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

He really does think in macros.

Deathlike, on 31 January 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

That's not how the math works.

You are trying to reason with somebody who really does think in macros. His position is so fundamentally flawed but he can't even see it because his thought process is stuck at Duplos level while the rest of us have moved on from Lego entirely and are assembling thoughts at the nanoscopic level.

[Deathlike]

Yeonne Greene, on 31 January 2017 - 08:33 PM, said:

He really does think in macros.

You are trying to reason with somebody who really does think in macros. His position is so fundamentally flawed but he can't even see it because his thought process is stuck at Duplos level while the rest of us have moved on from Lego entirely and are assembling thoughts at the nanoscopic level.

I got confused long before you said "Lego".

[Y E O N N E]

Deathlike, on 31 January 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

I got confused long before you said "Lego".

[G4LV4TR0N]

I am sorry Deathlike but the only clueless guy in this topic is simply you. You already stated you don't own KFX-PR so you should be technically out of this topic long time ago but you keep going with your pointless talking on and on. I own all Kit Foxes and I can get 500 game score in any variant so for me Kit Fox Purifier is not pay to win, if winning for you is getting high score. I hope I am clean here.

Edited by G4LV4TR0N, 31 January 2017 - 08:54 PM.