By your flawed thinking me not having a yacht isn't fair.
What you have (or lack thereof) in real life is irrelevant and what is flawed is that you think how the real world works is how a PvP game should work. What is flawed is that you seem to think money should (or at least is acceptable) buy power, when it is demonstrably bad for ANY game.
Let me make this clear, selling power IS BAD for a PvP game, especially one that is F2P. It is probably a bigger no-no than power creep.
Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 05:31 PM.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 05:22 PM, said:
What you have in real life is irrelevant and what is flawed is that you think how the real world works is how a PvP game should work. What is flawed is that you seem to think money should (or at least is acceptable) buy power, when it is demonstrably bad for ANY game.
Let me make this clear, selling power IS BAD for a PvP game, especially one that is F2P. It is probably a bigger no-no than power creep.
No your complete and lack of logic is irrelevant. You arguing it's not fair like a child is irrelevant. You thinking you can apply your own meaning to what pay to win means is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrably proved anything nor have you once come up with a decent point.
Snazzy on the other hand I can't really argue with.
No your complete and lack of logic is irrelevant. You arguing it's not fair like a child is irrelevant. You thinking you can apply your own meaning to what pay to win means is irrelevant. You have demonstrably proved anything nor have you once come up with a decent point.
The only one acting like a child here is you. This entire response you just made doesn't refute any pieces of my argument (in fact you go one step further and add ad-hominems to it as well), you just spew rhetorical nonsense.
Judging from the other thread you are involved in right now, there seems to be a pattern of behavior as well.
Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 05:37 PM.
Snazzy Dragon, on 02 February 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:
No other clan light can do 4 small pulse and 4 srm 4 at the same time
Cheetah comes close but can't do 7 small pulse with ECM and it doesn't have the benefits of heat related quirks
Adder does not have jump jets leaving the kit fox the only clan light that can double PPC poptart
This annoys me very, very much.
4 SPL 4 SRM4 runs very, very hot. You will either run very low ammo counts, or run with very few DHS. Either way, it will not be as effective as a 8 SPL kit fox for sustained damage, or 6 SPL ACH for hit-and-run assassinations. I run the 4 SPL 4 SRM4 build for laughs, not for serious matches. It's fun to see things explode in one hit once in a blue moon, but thanks to SRM spread it's much less effective than a 8 SPL kitfox if you just want to go for pure damage. Not to mention that your massive, massive STs no longer have any struct quirks to help them tank a bit more damage, unlike the KFX-D STs if you want to boat SRMs.
Cheetah has the advantage of speed and very favourable mech geometry and scaling. It is NOT a gunboat mech, hence why it does NOT have heat related quirks. It has speed and really thin hitboxes to compensate for that; trading agility and tanking ability for sustained damage output. You cannot have your cake and eat it; choose either sustained damage or speed and much better hitboxes.
PPC poptarts on a light mech are far from optimal. You really want to jump with HoverJets that are less than half as effective as Class IV medium JJs? Be my guest, and see how you fare when you float really slowly upwards and get ripped to shreds by hitscan laser fire. Not to mention that packing 6 JJs means that you're taking off 3 potential DHS from an already hot mech, AND you're also adding heat whenever you use the JJs to jump.
And let's not forget the Adder's quirks, shall we? If we're going to use PPCs on an ADR, then let's take the primary carrier of PPCs on the chassis. Having the 8-piece omnipod bonus on the ADR-PRIME gives you a bonus +30% ERPPC velocity and an additional 5% heat reduction, bringing the total up to +30% velocity and -10% heat generation. This brings the ADR's heat management slightly better than the KFX, as it has one additional TrueDub and can mount two more external DHS compared to the KFX, in addition to having what is essentially a free 6 tons worth of TCOMP for projectile velocity bonuses. Yes, it cannot mount JJs, but as I have covered before, JJs are not in a good spot for lights and should be avoided unless you can mass them ala the Spider.
High mounted energy hardpoints are those that are above the cockpit, minimising the chance of someone putting fire into a bit of terrain. By this definition, the ADR's 3 high mounts (LT, RT, CT) are all high mounts, as they are all above the cockpit - thus making it so that what you can see, you can definitely hit. Not to mention that all three of them are actually positioned quite closely to the cockpit to the left and right, therefore making it even less likely that you'd hit a piece of terrain to the side of your mech. It also minimises convergence error when you're leading targets at long distances. I think only the Raven has better convergence on high mounts, as far as light mechs are concerned, so I'm not even sure what you're complaining about here.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 05:35 PM, said:
The only one acting like a child here is you. This entire response you just made doesn't refute any pieces of my argument (in fact you go one step further and add ad-hominems to it as well), you just spew rhetorical nonsense.
Judging from the other thread you are involved in right now, there seems to be a pattern of behavior as well.
You don't have anything to refute. You don't have a point. There are reasonable ways to measure success and they don't align with your custom vision of what they are.
Bringing up another thread which you may or may not read all of has no bearing on you not having a point. A reasonable argument is hard to refute. See Snazzy's. You haven't done that nor do I believe you are even capable of doing so.
Sounds like a copout to avoid actually taking on the argument.
I have repeatedly said that you don't get to define what terms mean to suit yourself. That words can be looked up in the dictionary and that games have various accepted measures of what is winning or success. You can't refute that and you argue that my definition is too literal. Your argue my view is too narrow while considering only one chassis and not the class or entire game or its impact. You can't point to anything that backs what you say other than it is what you say it is and I am saying look up stats, compare other mechs, and so on and so on. You haven't made any argument that wasn't easily dismissed as being outright foolish. Yet you keep arguing. Then someone comes in and actually attacks my position in a way that I can't really refute and that is logical and makes sense, and you still want you argue using your faulty and illogical postion. Why?
For one it does look like Snazzy has been able to shoot down my arguments which although different than your reasoning, actually makes a case for it being pay to win. So right now what are you doing?
Bringing up a pattern of behavior of avoiding arguments is actually pretty important.
Well that might be a case if it wasn't subjective and had context. You are saying I am behaving in a way without any proof or context. That sounds more like what you discribed above as a copout. It also doesn't make sense in so many ways. For one, avoiding arguments is a good thing because they are not productive. Running from a proper debate I would say is bad. I also despite the tediousness of you bringing up the same fallacious argument repeatedly, continued to engage in mindless argument with you. So I didn't run from arguing with, maybe I should have to disengage from unhealthy behaviour, I don't know.
I am not sure if you are sore that you weren't able to beat me into submission by wearing me down by trying to get me to accept your custom english or your custom version of what winning is. Or is that Snazzy came along and smashed my argument in one post? If you had come up with that argument first I guess you would have won the thread or something? Not sure, don't care. If you had though, I would have accepted it just as readily because he makes a hell of a point there. So that I am quite likely wrong not enough for you? At this point do you just want to attack my character and pick a fight with me? Gees, if I were you I would be happier that what I suspected to be pay to win had more evidence that it was then where it came from or that it wasn't my point (or in this case lack of) that tipped the scale.
Man out of all the nonsense almost everybody else has been trying to use this Snazzy, is the only post yet that I have seen that might actually have a point.
TBH, it should've been obvious and not needed to be stated, but since we're there, it's worth expanding upon.
One of the core problems of the Kitfox (in the same vein of the Summoner) is the lack of Energy Hardpoints. We see the same thing in the Shadowcat.
If say tomorrow, PGI announced a hero Shadowcat that would have omnipods that would increase the overall number of energy hardpoints... well, it would easily be considered the strongest variant (well, for its omnipods anyways).
The Ice Ferret... for all the things people don't give a crap about (it's a nice Fridge after all), is able to do 5 CERMEDs. The Scat at best has only 4 energy hardpoints to work with. The Summoner w/o its loyalty omnipods has 4. The Summoner's loyalty omnipods allows them to do 6. When you have a limited tonnage, energy hardpoints become really important.
From a power level, the Purifier literally boosts the overall offensive potential (at least in the form of energy hardpoints) of the Kitfox to a level that a Adder can't even do themselves (well, except equipping 2 CERPPCs, since that's expensive). The Adder itself at BEST has 3 high mounted torso weapon energy hardpoints (CT is the highest point, can't fit a PPC in it), while the Kitfox can JJ and have 4 from the Purifier's omnipods. Not that I would think the Kitfox is a great mech, but in some ways it would have a slight edge over the Adder, instead of the Adder being overall better (when the Purifier's omnipods are not considered).
The power level of things can change, even if it's not #1. The simple fact that there's a paywall barrier to obtaining that power is why it is more traditionally called P2W. Unless that option is available (in the form of a free variant, payed for by C-bills), it will be continued to be viewed as a problem.
It doesn't have to be #1 overall... it simply has to be the "must have"-best option for a chassis behind a paywall to be considered P2W.
games have various accepted measures of what is winning or success.
Looks like you pretty much ruined your specific view of what P2W means right here. If there are various accepted measures of what is winning or success (which there is even across chassis or certain variants wouldn't get balanced down for being too powerful relative to the rest) then how exactly is considering the success of a specific variant relative to the entire chassis wrong?
Evil Goof, on 02 February 2017 - 06:40 PM, said:
Your argue my view is too narrow while considering only one chassis and not the class or entire game or its impact.
Where did I say that I'm not considering the class or entire game. Again, this is something you are putting in our mouths. Let me put this in bold letters since it seems to gloss over you: If a mech is paywalled that gives any advantage over its fellow Chassis variants, Class variants, or the entire game, it is P2W. So who is being narrow exactly? Talk about strawmen.
Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 02 February 2017 - 07:32 PM.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 02 February 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:
Looks like you pretty much ruined your specific view of what P2W means right here. If there are various accepted measures of what is winning or success (which there is even across chassis or certain variants wouldn't get balanced down for being too powerful relative to the rest) then how exactly is considering the success of a specific variant relative to the entire chassis wrong?
Where did I say that I'm not considering the class or entire game. Again, this is something you are putting in our mouths. Let me put this in bold letters since it seems to gloss over you: If a mech is paywalled that gives any advantage over its fellow Chassis variants, Class variants, or the entire game, it is P2W. So who is being narrow exactly? Talk about strawmen.
You are still trying to argue? No point my argument was taken out by Snazzy.
Your custom view of what pay to mean as meaning best variant is still wrong. You not understanding what is measurable as winning or success is still wrong. Sorry.
TBH, it should've been obvious and not needed to be stated, but since we're there, it's worth expanding upon.
One of the core problems of the Kitfox (in the same vein of the Summoner) is the lack of Energy Hardpoints. We see the same thing in the Shadowcat.
If say tomorrow, PGI announced a hero Shadowcat that would have omnipods that would increase the overall number of energy hardpoints... well, it would easily be considered the strongest variant (well, for its omnipods anyways).
The Ice Ferret... for all the things people don't give a crap about (it's a nice Fridge after all), is able to do 5 CERMEDs. The Scat at best has only 4 energy hardpoints to work with. The Summoner w/o its loyalty omnipods has 4. The Summoner's loyalty omnipods allows them to do 6. When you have a limited tonnage, energy hardpoints become really important.
From a power level, the Purifier literally boosts the overall offensive potential (at least in the form of energy hardpoints) of the Kitfox to a level that a Adder can't even do themselves (well, except equipping 2 CERPPCs, since that's expensive). The Adder itself at BEST has 3 high mounted torso weapon energy hardpoints (CT is the highest point, can't fit a PPC in it), while the Kitfox can JJ and have 4 from the Purifier's omnipods. Not that I would think the Kitfox is a great mech, but in some ways it would have a slight edge over the Adder, instead of the Adder being overall better (when the Purifier's omnipods are not considered).
The power level of things can change, even if it's not #1. The simple fact that there's a paywall barrier to obtaining that power is why it is more traditionally called P2W. Unless that option is available (in the form of a free variant, payed for by C-bills), it will be continued to be viewed as a problem.
It doesn't have to be #1 overall... it simply has to be the "must have"-best option for a chassis behind a paywall to be considered P2W.
I conceded to Snazzy.
The reason is because he attacked my argument that there was other mech's that were equal.
He destroyed that.
Are you trying to pile on or are you like the Quick guy and just love arguing?
MacClearly/Evil Goof/Quixotic Debate Genius, on 31 January 2017 - 09:49 PM, said:
You are a joke. You can't win the argument by misinterpreting what pay to win means.
Now who's being insulting? You challenge Dino Might in the other thread to be the mature one and refrain from responding to you and here you are failing that very same litmus test, brilliantly, with an extra dose of projection to sweeten the deal. I'm the joke? Well, at least I'm funny and that's one more positive trait than you have.
Ironically, you've been misconstruing what Pay-2-Win means this whole time. To sample the gaming community at large:
Google definition of Pay 2 Win said:
Pay to win is when a game company sells stuff that gives an in game advantage through micro transactions.
Urban Dictionary definition of Pay 2 Win said:
Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying.
Reddit Resident Interpretation of Pay 2 Win No 1 said:
I've always taken the term "pay to win" very literally. You paid money for an advantage. That's it, you paid to win. Nothing else defines the term.
Nothing there says anything about the ability or inability of to earn said items whether through time, effort, skill, or any combination. Most games these days are play to win (in many cases wait to win....) with an option to pay to win instead.
If if it's optional to pay, I still dislike the practice. People are paying for things you had to put effort and/or time in to getting. The balance seems to be most often heavily skewed in favor of paying in terms of time/$value. Even if you work minimum wage, paying an hour worth of work is almost always faster than an hour of effort in game.
Reddit Resident Interpretation of Pay 2 Win No 2 said:
In the strictest definition, 'pay 2 win' only refers to games where some mechanics or power are locked behind a pay wall, and are inaccessible to non-paying players. This used to be the most common use imo. But it's also perfectly possible to allow free players access to mechanics and power in such a limited quantity that the game might as well be labelled 'pay 2 win'.
Reddit Resident Interpretation of Pay 2 Win No 3 said:
Pay2Win is any game that sells players useful items or services which lets them progress significantly faster or gives them a significant advantage over non-paying customers. This is pretty much everything that is not cosmetic, and it applies to PvP and PvE alike.
Reddit Resident Interpretation of Pay 2 Win No 4 said:
In my opinion, if you can purchase a straight power upgrade of any kind then the game is pay to win - even if the same items theoretically can be obtained by playing for free.
There are two reasons that I take it to this extreme.
> Unlocking straight power upgrades over time is a cancer of competitive gaming and should be abolished even when no payment options are involved
> Having it there is an active incentive for the developer to make poor game decision choices in terms of balance and pacing in order to get more money
On (1), if you are handing fundamentally more powerful equipment or unlocks to players who have put more hours into the game you're making the existing problem of a power imbalance between new and veteran players even worse. This is a real problem in gaming and can kill many communities - if new players feel like they're getting destroyed with no hope they stop playing, which drastically cuts down in the influx of new players. It's the fastest way I know of to make sure your game will never have a thriving community in the long-term.
However, even if (1) weren't an issue then you're still creating an environment where developers will be monetarily rewarded in the short term for intentionally bad game design. Even people with the best of intentions will be influenced by this to some degree, and thus the practice will over time decrease the overall quality of a game. Basically, if I can trade either money or time to be fundamentally better at the game the developer has done something wrong.
You will find many interpretations of Pay-2-Win. Yes, some people take the same view that you do, but never has your view ever been generally accepted as the definitive one, nor is yours necessarily the simplest or most basic (Pay-4-Advantage is just as basic and even simpler). You are doing exactly what you are accusing Quicksilver of doing, creating your own definition to measure the game against. You are then trying to force everybody in this thread to accept your narrow interpretation as if it is the right one, but there is no standard to back that assertion up and the internet-at-large doesn't seem to agree with it, either. You want us to prove that it isn't right, but you haven't even proven that it is; why is the burden of proof on everybody but the one making the claim? We haven't even gotten to whether or not the KFX-PR is P2W because you've subverted the thread to discussing the meaning of P2W, and we can't define the KFX-PR until we have agreed on the standard we are measuring it against.
Using simple, basic, and broadly accepted meanings, Pay-2-Win is actually Pay-4-Advantage and Pay-2-Win is a little bit of a misnomer that you have invested too much of yourself into because you have no respect for the concepts of “jargon” and/or “vernacular”.
TL;DR: the world is wrong and you are right, but the inverse can't possibly be true!
Quote
Again go back to any game or sports for an analogy or comparison. You don't have to accept that games have winning conditions or that statistics can be used to measure individual performance and or success, but by refusing to accept this and insisting it is only relative to the individual is patently absurd. It's like saying I am a financial success because I have accumulated a thousand dollars...
The issue I have isn't that you are using success to determine what is Pay-2-Win. The issue I have is that what you have chosen to define as "success" only includes winning the match. The justification you give is that it is measurable by the game. Neat, that's a great start, kid, let's ignore KDR and Match Score for a minute and roll with it.
Winning the match can be accurately distilled down to “improve WLR,” because that's the most informative, measurable result you get out of winning matches (i.e. nobody gives a damn if you have 500 wins, they care how many losses you had to endure to get those wins). However, WLR can be raised even with bad 'Mechs...as long as you use the least-bad ones. If you raise your 'Mech WLR, that raises your average WLR. If your average WLR is going up faster with the pay-walled option than without, that pay-walled thing must be P2W using your own interpretation, because it has contributed directly to the win. Whether that's because it could buy more time as a distraction for team mates to carry or actually dealt more damage to the enemy is immaterial, it contributes to the win. Your lack of nuance in thinking has failed to account for that result arising from your interpretation of "P2W."
But wait, you say, there are other options this player could have taken to do the same thing. True, however, here's an angle that has not really been adequately discussed:
The skill bracket also factors in.
If you have this performance-enhancing (huehuehue) version of your mediocre 'Mech in a low-tier match enabling builds and corresponding effectiveness that less affluent players can't replicate but plays extremely well against the expected skill level, better than the options that are considered superior at other skill brackets, you've given yourself a nice advantage that boosts your WLR. You are P2W. You could try to argue that skills are fluid and change, but players are stuck in a bracket long enough to be considered semi-permanent and that kind of thing does become an issue (see also: the reason Locusts and Warhammers and Blackjacks got nerf-hammered, why MGs and Flamers took two years to get buffed, and why PGI still thought there was a laser meta problem 8 months after it was obsolete).
And it gets weirder, again, because team composition plays a part, too.
There can be other 'Mechs in the game that are better than what you brought, but you can be dropped in a match that has none of them (I drop into a lot of matches where my MLX is the fastest Light and I'm expected to go cap...lol, good one). You can be dropped in a match with only other, non-premium versions of your chassis or worse. Again, that puts you into a P2W situation if your premium-augmented 'Mech can do things that are more useful than what the others can do. You are giving Snazzy credit for pointing this part out, but it's been pointed out to you several times in this thread before that. You should have been able to suss that much out whenever somebody mentioned “superior” or “unique” builds. Like, duh. You seemed intelligent enough that we shouldn't have had to spoon-feed it to you.
And finally, WLR isn't the only stat you can use to track performance. You've got KDR and Match Score as well, and they are even tracked on a per-variant basis. I already alluded to these stats in previous posts, and you ignored them, but since you've now been implicitly waving them around at Quicksilver & Co., I am compelled to remind you about them. They are quantified by the game. They are tracked by the game. Why don't they matter? Why is WLR the only stat that matters to define "winning?" Why doesn't it count if I'm improving myself through this premium item faster than I would without it?
Quote
You don't win the argument because you want to use micro thinking in relation to what the term pay to win means, but macro thinking because you want to apply it to one variant of a chassis while excluding the competitiveness of all others. Not even to mention the "macro thinking" of the Purifiers overall effectiveness in the game!!!
Macro-thinking...you are not using the term properly. You are conflating it with the concept of tunnel-vision, which is a trait you are displaying in spades but not the same thing.
Macro thinking is breaking thoughts into basic, fundamental components without allowing any room for nuance. That's what you are doing. You have decided that Pay-2-Win (an inherently nuanced term) means one thing, and one thing only, and have attempted use that interpretation as a defense for itself. It can't work and it doesn't work because you have to violate your own written, established rule (which you are holding us to even though it is your personal rule and not a broadly accepted protocol for debate) to do it. You have to take the true, literal definition of "winning" and then make it mean something very context-specific (in this case, that context-specific definition is to increase the MWO Wins tracker by 1). This is the exact opposite of using basic, simple meanings of terms, though, because “winning” is a naturally broader term than that. If I'm consistently killing 'Mechs, getting big match scores, and generally performing better than the average population while still losing the match because of that average population (hooray solo QP), how am I not at least winning on a personal level? Why shouldn't that count? It's still tracked by the game and measurable and, more importantly, I'm still satisfied with my performance.
And that last point begs the question: what's really more central to the reason P2W is so maligned? Is it the fact that the free stuff isn't absolutely competitive with the premium stuff, or is it that what players loosely want to do in a game can't be done unless they go premium? I'd say it's actually the latter, because the majority of players can't recognize the former in day-to-day playing. It only comes out at the top. That is why P2W can't really be simplified to "increase WLR," because it is relative. Relative to skill level of the competition, relative to skill level of own team, relative to the other equipment in the match, relative to how PGI sold the game to the players.
Quote
To win an argument you have to have convincing or compelling evidence or reasoning that is enough to sway the other person. This is almost impossible to do by misinterpreting english and telling someone that the definition of the term is not face value but what you have decided it is. It is ridiculous.
You realize that you must also provide these things and follow those rules, and that you have failed to do either, right? All of your rebuttals have devolved into a poorly obfuscated usage of the “I'm rubber, you're glue” defense, as anybody with half a brain can see by looking at your choice in diction when replying to me or Quicksilver. Your spiteful use of our arguments as your own a few pages after they were first presented has only served to undermine your own position.
That you still don't see that you have cherry-picked your own definitions while accusing us of doing the same is what's really ridiculous here.
Every "Free to Play" game needs some kind of microtransactions, and since even pure cosmetics have an influence on gameplay (who does not shoot the golden Dire first?) all of them are Pay-To-Win to some degree...
The question that should instead be asked: "Has the game an unfair amount of Pay to Win?"
And since this thread is based on the performance of the Purifier there is next to no Pay to Win involved, since for every Light-Mech-Role I can think of there is a much better choice (Jenner IIC, Arctic Cheater, Locust, even Adder...) than a Kit Fox...
The only way you can make it Pay to Win is inventing arbitrary rules like "Only Kit Foxes allowed", then the Purifier unfair PTW... but this scope is so narrow that its next to irrelevant...
Now who's being insulting? You challenge Dino Might in the other thread to be the mature one and refrain from responding to you and here you are failing that very same litmus test, brilliantly, with an extra dose of projection to sweeten the deal. I'm the joke? Well, at least I'm funny and that's one more positive trait than you have.
Ironically, you've been misconstruing what Pay-2-Win means this whole time. To sample the gaming community at large:
Dino jumped into a conversation and starting talking about something completely different and for pages didn't explain, all the while saying I was wrong, a child, and an idiot. If you think that is the same or relevant to this conversation Ok.
Do look back however because I have conceded my point already to Snazzy so now you are doing this why? It seems like Dino you like arguing or enjoy conflict either way it really doesn't matter.
You will find many interpretations of Pay-2-Win. Yes, some people take the same view that you do, but never has your view ever been generally accepted as the definitive one, nor is yours necessarily the simplest or most basic (Pay-4-Advantage is just as basic and even simpler). You are doing exactly what you are accusing Quicksilver of doing, creating your own definition to measure the game against. You are then trying to force everybody in this thread to accept your narrow interpretation as if it is the right one, but there is no standard to back that assertion up and the internet-at-large doesn't seem to agree with it, either. You want us to prove that it isn't right, but you haven't even proven that it is; why is the burden of proof on everybody but the one making the claim? We haven't even gotten to whether or not the KFX-PR is P2W because you've subverted the thread to discussing the meaning of P2W, and we can't define the KFX-PR until we have agreed on the standard we are measuring it against.
No I completely disagree. I am saying that pay to win doesn't mean pay to win one single chassis which is what your argument is based upon. I will always say that if there is a free version in that class, in other words an option that allows someone to compete on an equal playing field, than it is not pay to win.
I am not trying to force anything as I am in the minority of those who have responded. Not only that but I have conceded to Snazzy's point but you don't care about that because you seem to want to argue with me. Kick me while I am down, it's ok I am not always right.
We can also go back and forth and you and I are never going to agree that considering only one single chassis isn't the narrow minded thinking. I will always contend that you have to have reasonable and demonstrable ways to show what winning is. My proof is that there exists stats and winning conditions to measure winning or success. Never mind that although I concede that the Purifier is the best Kitfox (and the reason I went and bought it and two other Kitfox's), that right now that evidence is only anecdotal at best.
Using simple, basic, and broadly accepted meanings, Pay-2-Win is actually Pay-4-Advantage and Pay-2-Win is a little bit of a misnomer that you have invested too much of yourself into because you have no respect for the concepts of “jargon” and/or “vernacular”.
Broadly accepted? Pay for advantage I totally accept as being commonly referred to as pay to win I am not debating you on that point. My argument had been (again until Snazzy pointed something I had not thought of nor had anyone else brought up) that since there was another mech or more with the same firepower in it's class, if not more than one, it was not at an advantage.
TL;DR: the world is wrong and you are right, but the inverse can't possibly be true!
Not debating the world, I am debating your interpretation of what an advantage is. Whether other chassis should be considered. Also what would commonly be considered a win condition or measurable success. Nothing you have said so far has changed that. Sorry didn't watch the video as my wife is sleeping but I will do you the courtesy tomorrow, since you are so invested in arguing with me and continuing to do so despite my point being proven wrong by someone else. You also have seem to put time and thought into this so I sort of feel like I owe it to you at this point. Believe me when I tell you that if the video sways my mind I will have no problem saying so and telling you that I am wrong.
The issue I have isn't that you are using success to determine what is Pay-2-Win. The issue I have is that what you have chosen to define as "success" only includes winning the match. The justification you give is that it is measurable by the game. Neat, that's a great start, kid, let's ignore KDR and Match Score for a minute and roll with it.
Nope. Not what I said. I may have used the win conditions as part of it but have also pointed to the stats and leaderboards when either you or perhaps others argued that I was excluding personal success. If I had actually excluded personal success I would absolutely be wrong in not consider that an accurate or acceptably common definition of winning. Again my point has alway been in that regard that I didn't consider winning one chassis to be enough. Not in regards to what would be fair play.
Winning the match can be accurately distilled down to “improve WLR,” because that's the most informative, measurable result you get out of winning matches (i.e. nobody gives a damn if you have 500 wins, they care how many losses you had to endure to get those wins). However, WLR can be raised even with bad 'Mechs...as long as you use the least-bad ones. If you raise your 'Mech WLR, that raises your average WLR. If your average WLR is going up faster with the pay-walled option than without, that pay-walled thing must be P2W using your own interpretation, because it has contributed directly to the win. Whether that's because it could buy more time as a distraction for team mates to carry or actually dealt more damage to the enemy is immaterial, it contributes to the win. Your lack of nuance in thinking has failed to account for that result arising from your interpretation of "P2W."
Most of the above I agree with completely. The couple of caveats being that as stated previously, I do consider personal success in a chassis as a common and accepted measure of success or winning in discussing what pay to win means. I also still maintain that limiting the idea to one chassis without looking at the other options in its class is wrong.
A quick aside. If you are wondering why I might have become a bit short tempered or insulting, statements such as 'Your lack of nuance in thinking has failed to account for that result arising from your interpretation of "P2W."' You may think that dig as subtle or you may not I am not sure. I am sure it is insulting and it seems to be something you have done repeatedly so either we both stop, or we both take pot shots but lets not pretend either of us doesn't have some dirt on our hands here.
But wait, you say, there are other options this player could have taken to do the same thing. True, however, here's an angle that has not really been adequately discussed:
The skill bracket also factors in.
If you have this performance-enhancing (huehuehue) version of your mediocre 'Mech in a low-tier match enabling builds and corresponding effectiveness that less affluent players can't replicate but plays extremely well against the expected skill level, better than the options that are considered superior at other skill brackets, you've given yourself a nice advantage that boosts your WLR. You are P2W. You could try to argue that skills are fluid and change, but players are stuck in a bracket long enough to be considered semi-permanent and that kind of thing does become an issue (see also: the reason Locusts and Warhammers and Blackjacks got nerf-hammered, why MGs and Flamers took two years to get buffed, and why PGI still thought there was a laser meta problem 8 months after it was obsolete).
Again I think you make very good points here. One of the things that Snazzy's destruction of my point was the Purifiers ability to do commonly accepted meta better with its mounts (ppc poptarting) than other mechs need be considered. I had not thought of that. To be honest though with the above paragraph it probably would not have poped out to me. This is likely do to my being inexperienced and a bit of a potato. Perhaps this part was evident to you but you couldn't articulate it to someone less experienced? Not sure.
And it gets weirder, again, because team composition plays a part, too.
There can be other 'Mechs in the game that are better than what you brought, but you can be dropped in a match that has none of them (I drop into a lot of matches where my MLX is the fastest Light and I'm expected to go cap...lol, good one). You can be dropped in a match with only other, non-premium versions of your chassis or worse. Again, that puts you into a P2W situation if your premium-augmented 'Mech can do things that are more useful than what the others can do. You are giving Snazzy credit for pointing this part out, but it's been pointed out to you several times in this thread before that. You should have been able to suss that much out whenever somebody mentioned “superior” or “unique” builds. Like, duh. You seemed intelligent enough that we shouldn't have had to spoon-feed it to you.
Ok. Personally I am not going to accept a match by match what if based scenerio. We won't agree there that in the grand scheme of things I should consider what if the were only two lights, and both were Kitfox's but one was a Purifier and one wasn't... The only way I would is if it was the deciding match at the World Championships or MRBC but those points are moot.
And finally, WLR isn't the only stat you can use to track performance. You've got KDR and Match Score as well, and they are even tracked on a per-variant basis. I already alluded to these stats in previous posts, and you ignored them, but since you've now been implicitly waving them around at Quicksilver & Co., I am compelled to remind you about them. They are quantified by the game. They are tracked by the game. Why don't they matter? Why is WLR the only stat that matters to define "winning?" Why doesn't it count if I'm improving myself through this premium item faster than I would without it?
This falls back to a miscommunication or cross up about what I consider winning. My definition is anything commonly accepted as a measure of success (stats etc.) and in game mechanics. For me my big sticking point is that it be easily appreciable by many or majority.
Also as a side note I am not particulartly interested in WLR in the public queue and my ratio is pretty terrible (.83 season 7). I do care about it when dropping with my unit in group or faction however and it is much better there. So it isn't like I don't appreciate other measures of success. I had my average match score over 230 for most of season but took quite a hit when working on stuff I wasn't good at, which made me a bit sad but oh well. I placed ok in the Bushie leaderboard by only trying to elite and master them so I have that.
Macro-thinking...you are not using the term properly. You are conflating it with the concept of tunnel-vision, which is a trait you are displaying in spades but not the same thing.
I disagree that you are using the term correctly.
Micro thinking focuses on and considers only the direct or immediate contributing factors in a hazard/risk situation. Macro thinking is a process that considers the interrelationships and dynamics among system components and the decision making throughout the operating system.
Macro thinking is breaking thoughts into basic, fundamental components without allowing any room for nuance. That's what you are doing. You have decided that Pay-2-Win (an inherently nuanced term) means one thing, and one thing only, and have attempted use that interpretation as a defense for itself. It can't work and it doesn't work because you have to violate your own written, established rule (which you are holding us to even though it is your personal rule and not a broadly accepted protocol for debate) to do it. You have to take the true, literal definition of "winning" and then make it mean something very context-specific (in this case, that context-specific definition is to increase the MWO Wins tracker by 1). This is the exact opposite of using basic, simple meanings of terms, though, because “winning” is a naturally broader term than that. If I'm consistently killing 'Mechs, getting big match scores, and generally performing better than the average population while still losing the match because of that average population (hooray solo QP), how am I not at least winning on a personal level? Why shouldn't that count? It's still tracked by the game and measurable and, more importantly, I'm still satisfied with my performance.
We will always but heads if you don't consider other chassis. Also I insist that winning be a tangible and widely accepted measure. Again personal success included, as well as in game mechanics. I however reject anyone that wants to include restricting that to one single chassis's performance in the game.
And that last point begs the question: what's really more central to the reason P2W is so maligned? Is it the fact that the free stuff isn't absolutely competitive with the premium stuff, or is it that what players loosely want to do in a game can't be done unless they go premium? I'd say it's actually the latter, because the majority of players can't recognize the former in day-to-day playing. It only comes out at the top. That is why P2W can't really be simplified to "increase WLR," because it is relative. Relative to skill level of the competition, relative to skill level of own team, relative to the other equipment in the match, relative to how PGI sold the game to the players.
An interesting personal opinion.
You realize that you must also provide these things and follow those rules, and that you have failed to do either, right? All of your rebuttals have devolved into a poorly obfuscated usage of the “I'm rubber, you're glue” defense, as anybody with half a brain can see by looking at your choice in diction when replying to me or Quicksilver. Your spiteful use of our arguments as your own a few pages after they were first presented has only served to undermine your own position.
What you are not seeming to understand is that both you and the Quick fella, stated the same arguments over and over and over. When people do that, it becomes quite tiresome.
So when I say that for me to accept your argument, you must meet the conditions that winning is a demonstrable and able to be measured for me to consider it valid, I absolutely don't consider that position unreasonable. Again, stats, leaderboards and the rest is to what I am reffering. I also said repeatedly ad nauseum, that I don't think that being the best Kitfox when there are other mechs better or equal is an acceptable argument. You guys chose to continue to try and bring up circular logic why it was. Not only that you couldn't articulate an apprecaible measure of winning outside personal opinion. It also seems you misinterpreted what I said would be an acceptable and common measure of success or winning.
Nothing the two of you said was different or challenging to my opinion. You seem to try and twist and turn to which I got basic and repetitive as that is the best method when someone is trying to win an argument by convoluting it. What you misinterpret as spite was actually boredom and frustration with two guys trying desperately to win an argument instead of debate a point.
As well the only time I parroted you was your misuse and misapplication of the term macro thinking.
That you still don't see that you have cherry-picked your own definitions while accusing us of doing the same is what's really ridiculous here.
No, what is ridiculous is saying that my need for something to be simple and easily accepted is in any way shape or form cherry-picking definitions. Also you turning it around erroneously because I have insisted that your interpretation was not easily digestable or able to be considered common. Specifically in reference to what constitutes winning which you both insisted meant being the best of one chassis.
In conclusion, depite me conceding to Snazzy, you have still chosen to waste time and argue with me. On top of that our interaction was enough for you to read another disagreement with a completely different user, in a completely different thread. It seems to me that you have taken this much more personally than I have. While I may have be flippant or dismissive, you want to bring up another conversation as some sort of evidence against me and use it without context. That's actually kind of awesome that you would invest that much into it. By awesome I mean bizarre....
I just read the last several pages.
The idea that we fallen so far that a Kit Fox is the basis of a P2W argument.
A Kit Fox.
Not the loyalty Summoner. Not the ECM Stalker. Not last year's 'the only Cicada in the game with jump jets' (and originally with sweet PPC quirks). But a Kit Fox.
P2W or not...the very idea of it just seems a bit nutty.
11
This topic is locked
Evil Goof, on 02 February 2017 - 04:45 PM, said:
