Israel.7056

Still think they should just remove downed state altogether but I would be happy to see slower ressing or less downed state health as well

> @"tippolit.3591" said:

> > @"Strider Pj.2193" said:

> > > @"Victory.2879" said:

> > > .

> > >

> > > Instantly hit invuln skill: ***8 skills blocked in the time it takes me to hit one button.***

> >

> > .

> > so.... how does one fire off 8 skills without hitting one button?

>

> try rereading what the OP said. In the time it took him to hit his invuln (more likely in the time the invuln was active), his attacker fired off 8 skills. We've all encountered this at one time or another, so being dismissive of his complaint is just not fair or honest. The fact is that use of macros in WvW is getting out of hand. This is likely an example of it.

Or maybe just saying maybe it was an exaggeration.

Maybe it was really like 3 or 4 skills and he embellished a bit and said 8.

Still I know his frustration I also hate thieves and I've hated them since launch. Even after putting about several hundred hours on one I still hate them. They were a pain to fight on my warrior and they're even more annoying on my rev. The only thing I hate more than thieves are mesmers and I mained mesmer for the first year of the game.

> @"Chaba.5410" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > It matters to me because I bought the xpacs solely to get a power advantage and I did so knowingly. The only reason I bought them was for the elite specs. If they'd given out the elites for free in WvW I'm sure myself and many many others would never have bought HoT or PoF.

>

>

> Right. You got what you paid for. But as you can see, the OP is unwilling to pay for it and just wants it given to him because he spent money in the gem store in the past rather than spending money on the thing for sale. It's like saying, "I spent money buying pants at this store a year ago so they should give me this new shirt for free."

>

> Of course people will take something for free if given the chance and Anet does give out free stuff from time to time (i.e., balance patches with new traits/skills), but giving away all their development work for free and having no sustainable income for ongoing operations costs (salaries, data centers, etc.) is a bad business practice.

I didnt say they should have given away anything for free or that I didn't get what I paid for I'm saying that literally the only reason I bought the xpacs was for the elite specs and for me to sit here and pretend otherwise would be disingenuous. They have to make money i get that but when they release xpacs and the only reason people like me are buying them is to be able to stay competitive that seems pretty "pay to win" to me. I paid to be able to win. Had I not paid I would've been at a huge competitive disadvantage against those who did pay especially before they went back over core specs to try to improve them post HoT. I wouldn't have even had access to rev for that matter I guess I would have still been running around on a pre buff vanilla warr trying to fight all the pre wall of nerf heralds lol.

Definitely one of the most broken things I've experienced in wvw was the chill shout reaper before before they nerfed the trait. Good god that was aids.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Yes if you can spend real money JUST to get a power advantage, and NOTHING ELSE, that would be pay to win. But an expansion isn't just a power advantage. It's the continuation of the game. When you buy an MMO you're buying access, not a game. It's like buying a membership to a club. That's just the way it is. In the old days you had a sub. You'd just pay the sub. If you stopped paying the sub, you had to stop playing the game. So yeah, you had to pay to play, which I guess means you'd pay to win as well, since you couldn't play at all without paying. This is a very similar thing. It's a purchase instead of a sub, to let you keep playing. Because you're expected to move forward and continue with the game, it's okay to raise the power. Because you're buying an entire game, not just power. The power is incidental to what you're buying.

Well I have to ask what if it's now an expected part of gaming that in some games you can buy power out of a cash shop for real money? What if players who play these games now expect to be able to progress and get advantages over players who don't pay in that way? They could turn your argument around and say it's not "pay to win" because they expect the games to work like that. Would you then say their expectations are irrelevant?

> If you only PvP, well, that doesn't matter. As I said it's like buying a Season ticket to Disney World, but only riding roller coasters. Not enough of them to make that worth it, and you'd have to decide it. Keep in mind, the game simply isn't meant to be free forever. It's a membership you're paying for...even if you're not paying for it monthly.

It matters to me because I bought the xpacs solely to get a power advantage and I did so knowingly. The only reason I bought them was for the elite specs. If they'd given out the elites for free in WvW I'm sure myself and many many others would never have bought HoT or PoF.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> I don't know the specifics of it in detail enough to answer, but if you're paying real life money for a power advantage, continually, just as power, yeah, I think I would call that pay to win. But I don't want to malign any game without knowing first hand what I'm talking about, so let's keep it hypothetical.

I can restate it as a hypothetical if you wish. Let's say you're playing a game where gear is really really important and you've spent a lot of time working on getting your gear through in game means. Let's say that you learn of someone buying high level/BiS gear from another person(s) through an online exchange. Let's say the purchaser now vastly outgears you and as a result has an enormous competitive advantage over you in PvP even though this person has put in none of the in game work you have. Would you then consider the purchaser to be "paying to win?"

> We're expected to pay for expansions as part of the ongoing maintenance of the game. Those expansions, therefore, can include power creep, which almost all do, because players want to progress. They want to get stronger/better/more power. It's the nature of people. Progression is what drives MMOs. We've bought into a word/lore/story and now we're paying to continue that and because we're expected to do that, they can raise the player power.

Granted. But that doesn't change the fact that you expected to pay real money on a regular basis to stay current with other people who also pay and to have a competitive advantage against those who do not.

Another problem I have with this line of reasoning: what you call "pay to win" is now common practice which is to say it's an expected part of many games.

It may have surprised at first you to see the freemium business model applied to MMOs years ago but at this point it's widely expected for certain *cough Korean cough* games to have some amount of regular purchases necessary just to stay current and then even more if you want to be really competitive. It varies from game to game but 50 dollars a month is nothing compared to what some of these modern MMOs require. So is it still "paying to win" in those games if it's an expected part of the game?

> But when a company offers just power as a seperate purchase, or something that makes it a lot easier to get power, or disadvantages you if you don't buy that specifically, I'd call that pay to win. And I'd call a company where players can sell each other stuff for real money pay to win as well... theoretically. Obviously, each situation would have be judged differently and different people will have different lines.

I don't disagree I just don't see xpacs, particularly the xpacs that Anet has released, as being any different.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> From Mike O’Brien...

>

> https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/15523/a-message-about-the-mount-adoption-license

>

> “Hi,

> We made a commitment to you in March 2012 that we’d fund GW2 live development through non-pay-to-win microtransactions. We try different ideas, but we always hold true to that commitment...”

>

> Pretty sure the consensus among most gamers on what “pay to win” means wouldn’t include paid mmo expansions... That argument usually comes from players wanting, or feel entitled to, more free stuff from a company...

>

> Again, the OP could have just asked for elites to be unlocked in wvw, not create some over dramatic and misleading title and thread. Silly...

>

>

Again i say to you that consensus is logically irrelevant. It might be an effective rhetorical device to appeal to the crowd for confirmation but logic doesn't care about what crowds think.

The way you seem to think about argumentation is also incredibly cynical and I've seen you approach discussions like this before. You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a bad actor. This is a bad way to approach a discussion in my opinion.

I feel neither entitled to anything in GW2 nor do I want anything for free from Anet or Mike O Brien.

I'm simply saying that I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I didn't buy the expansions to have a competitive advantage over others who didn't buy them because I did. I knew what I was doing when I bought them and I'm not going to lie to myself or the OP to make myself feel better. That would be intellectually dishonest.

That doesn't mean that I think p2w is morally wrong or that OP should get his silly legacy server request granted. If you read my initial responses you will see that i told him to basically deal with it or quit.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> The OP, and seems like you too, basically want free “stuff” by the looks of it, so you paint a paid xpac as “pay to win”. The OP could have easily asked that anet unlock all elites inside of wvw for any player that bought the original game, not make up stuff and accuse Anet of “pay to win” practices... just because they want things handed out free...

Here you go again trying to read into someone else's motives. I've told you before and I'll tell you again that's a very poor argumentation strategy.

I don't want anything for free and I'm not accusing Anet of anything. I've been playing MMOs for a long time I know the drill. I knew going in I'd have to spend money to stay competitive and I figured at the time that I could afford it and so far I've been right. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm not paying to win to make myself feel good. I am and it's fine.

> Instead of the request being honest and transparent, people want twist the charging of an xpac into some immoral practice by a game company... in reality it’s just someone being cheap and feeling entitled to some free stuff. The entire argument is petty and unreasonable.

Where did I say that I thought paying to win was immoral?

> And Vayne doesn't need to do mental gymnastics to prove any point, it’s just that you want to make this into some moral and philosophical argument because cash is used during the process, and need simple concepts over-explained to you... If you want free stuff just ask for it, don’t be silly about it.

I think I'm the one explaining a simple concept over and over. A=A. Expansions are a form of pay to win because I'm paying real money to gain a competitive advantage over those who don't and stay even with those who do. He's even granted that and just said "well we've always been ok with that because it's always been expected."

Ok but it's still a form of pay to win because I'm still paying to stay competitive, particularly in GW2 where someone like me only buys expacs for the elite specs.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

>The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs.

I missed this part.

To me all online games are like poker in that there's always a buy in. The buy in changes depending on the game so I just need to be clear going in what the buy in is going to be so I can determine whether or not I can afford to stay competitive over the long run. I can usually look at a game for a few days and get a very clear sense what the buy in is going to be, but sometimes not. If I think the buy in is more than I can afford I don't play the game. If there are people who want to spend real money to buy statistical advantages or whatever other thing to have a competitive advantage in a game that offers them whether it be from a cash shop or from one another I don't care that's all fine with me. I just don't play that kind of game. Simple as that.

With GW2 I have an understanding that I'm probably going to need to drop 60 dollars every few years to stay competitive even though I don't care about the story or anything other than WvW. I can afford that buy in so I keep playing GW2. But I don't delude myself into thinking I'm not paying money for a competitive advantage over the people who don't pay the buy in. I know I am and it's ok, I'll run over those people all day and not think twice about it because I paid for that advantage and they didn't.

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience.

> > > >

> > > > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own.

> > > >

> > > > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is.

> > > >

> > > > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not.

> > > >

> > > > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp.

> > >

> > > But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others.

> > >

> > > In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions.

> > >

> > > If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current.

> > >

> > > In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win.

> > >

> > > Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before.

> > >

> > > The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point.

> >

> > You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.

> >

> > Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X.

> >

> > You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question.

> >

> > What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions?

> >

> > What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that?

>

> I’m going to comment on this specifically...

>

> “You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.”

>

> Vayne’s comments were pretty easy to comprehend, it’s just that you’re more interested in arguing and redefining the words “pay to win”...

>

> Sorry, but the majority in the gaming community understands that game companies release paid xpacs/add-on packs that provide various “extras”... Whether it be level increases, new classes, weapons... or you name it... to update the game. The real problem for players is when a game sells “things” that basically provide statistical advantages outside of game packs.

>

> Again, you’re only interested in arguing and redefining words, but your efforts aren’t going to change the meaning of “pay to win” as most of us know it.

>

>

Did you happen to read his follow up post and see how muddled the reasoning is? He seems well intentioned but his posts read like a logic textbook example of special pleading. "It's similar granted but it's ok because we've always been ok with it so it doesn't count." "We need to preserve the term to have a name to call gaming practices we don't agree with." Textbook special pleading.

What the majority thinks or doesn't think is logically irrelevant. A=A regardless of how many people think otherwise.

You and many others may be totally comfortable twisting yourselves into a mental pretzel to try to justify an exception without any clear logical distinction but I'm not.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure.

> >

> > So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win?

> >

> > If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win?

> >

> > > I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess.

> >

> > I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it.

> >

> > What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency.

> >

>

> It's not an inconsistency. It has to do with the way the term has developed. For years, pretty much since the beginning, the level cap went up with MMOs and people got more powerful with those expansions. This was normal. This is what people accepted, because it's been like that as long as we can remember.

>

> But then other MMOs started coming out that did things differently. They started being "free to play" instead of having a subscription but they started adding things to the cash shop that seemed distinctly uncomfortable. The expansions, having always been there, weren't an issue for anyone and people didn't complain about them. It was how the whole system was set up and we all knew and agreed by that standard.

>

> But the new stuff, selling power in the cash shop that continually changed, or having to buy potions you needed to revive or have more power, that sort of thing we hadn't had to deal with. Those games, like Maple Story, were called pay to win. I think most of the Perfect World games fell into that category. Looking back to you it may seem inconsistent, but back then, no one would consider not buying an expansion and keeping on playing an MMO anyway. We were buying the expansion to further our story, and move forward into the world, so whatever power creep their was was just part of continuing the game.

>

> Looking back, sure it looks the same. But from our perspective of when the term came out, we used it to differentiate games that sold expansions which included as part of that some sort of power creep and games that just sold power, in and of itself, separately, or ways to get that power. Within that aspect, there were degrees of course, and some might consider one thing pay to win and another not. But no one was using the term pay to win to talk about the games we were already playing. We were using them to talk about the games coming out that did things differently, that we felt was different. Obviously giving us a whole new segment of story, along with new skills and stats...well that was the game itself.. You either stayed with the game and supported it, or you were left behind. We all bought into that, before the term P2W came to be, and P2W was used to point out games that did something other than that.

Alright a very helpful post thank you.

Before I attempt to unpack all that I want to know your thoughts on the scenario I posed in my previous post where a player pays another player(s) for high grade gear or BiS gear in order to have an immense competitive advantage over other players who dont have that level of gear. I'm thinking now of games like aion and archeage that allowed this sort of behavior at least when I was playing them. Would you consider that kind of behavior "pay to win?"

> @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

>Cost does not seem to be the deciding factor, rather the method of acquirement and competitive advantage.

I agree that it seems to conceptually be about paying for a competitive advantage. I don't really understand why the method would matter though.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Well one of the key words I keep using is cash shop. And continually having to buy to keep up. If you want a definition exactly I'd say any game that requires you to buy stuff in the cash shop to maintain your power level or get more powerful on a regular basis (not every couple of years, but more like monthly), is pay to win. There would be degrees of that for sure.

So would you consider buying BiS gear from another player for real money to be a form of pay to win?

If not, don't you think a lot of redditers might consider that to be pay to win?

> I am categorically stating and have said it over and over again that expansions have never factored into the pay to win discussion, and most people don't consider them pay to win, even if they do raise your power, which most do. Easy for you to check, just make a kitten poll on reddit MMORPG section or even here. Most people, the vast majority won't count expansions as pay to win. That's my guess.

I'm not contesting what redditers think I'll take your word for it.

What I find mind boggling here is that you concede that expansions usually raise your power level so to speak and that they cost money to buy but that they still don't count. That seems to me to be a clear inconsistency.

> @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

> generally accepted meaning of "pay to win".

There doesn't appear to be any generally accepted meaning. Instead there seems to be some nebulous sense of what qualifies based on what appears to me to be personal taste.

So for example, Vayne happens to think 50 dollars a month qualifies as pay to win but another person might consider that to be an entirely reasonable expense.

Arbitrary:

adjective

based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > >My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience.

> >

> > You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own.

> >

> > I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is.

> >

> > The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not.

> >

> > Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp.

>

> But again it applies too all games. Look, there have been games in the past where in order to stay current you had to continually pay money to the cash shop. That is you need say potions that give you an advantage in battle that you can only ever get through the cash shop, or it's impossible to farm in enough quantity in a reasonable time in order to progress to that point. Plenty of games allow you to buy power in the cash shop, while continually coming out with new tiers of gear that make you more powerful. People play hundreds or even thousands of dollars on those games so that they can have a little advantage over others.

>

> In every game I can think of in the history of the genre, including Guild Wars 1 (though it's not a true MMO), you've gotten more options and more power from expansions just by what's available to you. But it's an expansion with a bunch of stuff that you buy once a year or once every two years. In the six years this game has been in existence there have been exactly two expansions.

>

> If you want to water down the definition of pay to win to include expansions you have to include everyone but then, you have the other question. How do we single out the games that require constant purchases in a cash shop to stay current.

>

> In DDO for example, there was a throwing star you could get early on for your monk that was an infinite throwing star. But you couldn't get it, unless you owned a specific dungeon which was part of a content pack. You either bought the content, or you couldn't have a weapon that was ideally more. But they kept coming out with stuff like that. My friend used to pay $50 a month to play that game to keep up with the rest of his guild. That's pay to win.

>

> Buying an expansion every two years, that includes a bunch of stuff including elite specs has not ever fallen under that definition and most people, the vast majority, even in this thread, see this as a legit game. Not some fly by night game that requires you to keep spending in the cash shop to stay current. Look at the number of people in this thread who think this game is pay to win because of expansions and the number of people who don't. Try posting to reddit, where this has been discussed before.

>

> The overwhelming majority of MMO players aren't going to call this pay to win, and that's how these definitions get out there, because there is not except for what the community agrees upon. From my experience the community agrees expansions don't count as part of the pay to win formula. IF you want to use that definition you'd need to make an asterix everywhere that I'm just talking about expansions because a whole lot of people won't take it that way. And because this conversation has happened literally dozens (if not hundreds) of times , and in each of those times the community doesn't seem to be behind the idea of expansions being part of the pay to win formula, I'd say I have a point.

You still haven't provided anything approaching a coherent definition in my view.

Your position could be restated as follows: The term "pay to win" means whatever I think some number of people think it means > Some number of people think the term "pay to win" means X > the term "pay to win" means X.

You see the problem with this line of thinking? It never actually defines any specific parameters for the use of the term in question.

What exactly is "paying to win" in principle? What exactly are the conditions that have to be met for a game to be considered "pay to win?" Why specifically those conditions?

What logical difference does it make if you have to pay 60 dollars every two years, 50 dollars a month or ten thousand dollars a day to compete if you're always paying for the same thing in principle? These distinctions you're drawing seem to me to be entirely arbitrary as it just so happens that you personally consider 50 dollars a month to be an unreasonable expense but you personally consider 60 dollars every two years to be an entirely reasonable expense. How do you logically justify that?

> @"Laila Lightness.8742" said:

> Add in some condi cleanse

Pretty much just start here. Also revert mallyx to how it worked in beta.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

>My definition isn't arbitrary. It's based on experience.

You didn't even provide a concrete definition of your own.

I think if you really look at the conceptual semantics underpinning the term and the situations where people begin to use it you will see that what it really boils down to is players paying real money to gain or even attempt to gain some sort of competitive advantage in a video game. That's all it is.

The difference between most games then is the degree to which they are pay to win. In the case of GW2 the pay to win elements are limited to the expansions and only because the elite specs (firebrand, scourge, spellbreaker, herald, tempest/weaver, chrono etc) offer enormous competitive advantages to those who have them against those who do not.

Imagine for instance a large scale fight between two groups where skill levels are equal but where one side has full access to firebrands scourges and spellbreakers and the other has only access to vanilla guards, vanilla necros and vanilla warriors. I think you would agree that the PoF comp would have a massive massive advantage over the vanilla comp.

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> > @"Justine.6351" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > Does pulsating actually transfer conditions now?

> >

> > Nope, but I am going to recommend it anyhow.

>

> Deamon F2 does it every 3 sec and affects 10 players.

But the trait is supposed to do the same thing except last time I tested it it still just copied the condis instead of transferring them

> @"MachineManXX.9746" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > > Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

> >

> > Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

> >

> > The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

> >

> > > It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

> >

> > I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

> >

> > So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

> >

> > Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

> >

> > > Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

> >

> > The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

>

> It seems to me you are arguing, just for the sake of arguing. If every game you have ever played is pay to win, then the way you use the term has no meaning. If every game ever played was pay to win, why would the term even be brought up? We are obviously discussing something different. Now, if you choose to open your eyes and realize this discussion is about something different than your self imposed literal definition, then maybe you would have something meaningful to add.

I'm essentially just agreeing with the op about the xpacs being pay to win. Maybe read the thread next time before posting in a thread just a suggestion.

With pay to win in mmos the difference is always in the degree which is where people draw arbitrary lines in the sand depending on their own purchasing power and relative willingness to spend money on a given game. As I said before some people have no problem spending thousands on a game whereas others might draw the line at a hundred dollars. Gw2 has what I consider to be very affordable pay to win expansions but for some it might be too expensive.

So which game mechanic in this example do you consider to be broken? Stealth?

Does pulsating actually transfer conditions now?

There's always going to be some room for false positives with pips.

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Sorry I'm going to by years of experience here into how the term P2W was both used and interpreted. People can change the definition now if they want, but it still doesn't change the fact that the term loses all meaning if it applies to every single MMO and therefore, it loses all usefulness.

Ok well with all due respect I personally think that anecdotal experience, whether yours or mine, is largely irrelevant in a discussion like this. If you accept the semantic framework of what people are trying to say when they talk about "pay to win" then I think you must concede that there's some amount of it present in almost all games, including GW2.

The term "pay to win" might lose some of its sting as a pejorative to be leveled at a game once people realize that almost all games involve some amount of pay to win but so what? It's a largely nebulous insult that's arbitrarily leveled at games by people who simply can't afford the buy in.

> It doesn't matter how much money. It was about cash shop purchases that had to be done regularly. Some games require potions that you can only get in the cash shop in the quantity you need. People would pay big money every single month to be able to raid with their guilds. If you haven't seen those games, I'm sure you can find them. Selling an expansion every couple of years, which includes multiple zones, and story along with the elite spec has never been considered pay to win. In all the years I played Guild Wars 1, I'd never heard it been called pay to win and I don't hear WoW called pay to win even though you need to buy expansions to get the power to beat other people. There are examples in this very thread of why that is.

I don't think the frequency of the purchases matters I think what matters is the competitive advantage the purchases are intended to bestow upon the purchaser regardless of the frequency or nominal dollar value of said purchases.

So for instance let's say you're playing Archeage and you're trying to get the BiS gear for two years and then someone comes along and spends 20k over a handful of purchases to have all the BiS gear you've been working towards that entire time and now he vastly outgears you despite having done none of the in game work you have done to try acquire the same gear and this gives him a significant competitive advantage over you and anyone else he outgears (which is probably almost everyone) that he wouldn't have had otherwise. He doesn't have to keep making purchases after that point to maintain that enormous advantage until someone either spends more than he did to get the next best thing or alternatively someone gets very very very lucky through in game means (which in that game was extremely time consuming to even attempt.)

Still you would presumably call that "pay to win" right? If so then I think it's clear that what you would be calling out as "pay to win" would fundamentally be the use of real money purchases to attempt to gain in game competitive advantages regardless of frequency of purchases or nominal dollar amount of said purchases. If you wouldn't call that "pay to win" then why not?

> Because if you start calling every MMO pay to win, what's the point. Those who played pay to win games can probably fill you in on the specifics better than I can. But I was there for a lot of those conversations and not one of them included expansions. If you want to raise the bar, you might as well drop the term. Because it's lost every single iota of meaning this way.

The point to me is that every single MMO I've ever played has been p2w to some degree or another and for me to pretend otherwise would be intellectually disingenuous on my part and I'd rather be honest about what I think than lie and attempt to perform the mental gymnastics required to try to preserve a gaming pejorative that frankly seems messy to me to begin with.

> @"TheGrimm.5624" said:

> Again, if the complaint is that AC's didn't make sense to damage siege than nerf the damage to siege and buff the bali's ability to damage it, but nerfing both, players and siege just supports the zerg and discourages people from defending. And yes I come at this from a havoc/soloer's perspective and not from a zergs perspective. I also still think this is an issue difference in people specing into zerk gear versus people running more defensive gear sets like pvt for wvw.

Discourages which people from defending?

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Language isn't literal.

"Concrete" is perhaps the better word. And yes it can be. If we can readily identify a semantic principle underlying a particular phrase such as "pay to win" we can extrapolate that principle and apply it consistently wherever the principle conditions are met.

>I'm not talking about a dictionary definition. Certain games were labeled pay to win because you had to constantly shell out money in their cash shop to stay relevant. We knew what they were and what it meant. There was no guess work. That's what pay to win means. You're interpreting those words literally but it had a meaning.

But that's entirely arbitrary. Exactly how much money does one have to "shell out" before it's pay to win? one hundred dollars? two hundred? one thousand? one million? To some people ten thousand dollars might seem a reasonable expense to pay to be viable in a video game to others three hundred might seem unreasonable but in both cases they're paying money to have a better chance of winning. The dollar amount is therefore irrelevant.

> No one ever once in 15 years that I can remember ever said that the game is pay to win because you have to buy expansions. That thought process never existed, even though expansions gave you more options. You had to buy Factions to get a Rit or a Sin, you couldn't play them in Guild Wars 1 without buying factions but no one called Factions pay to win. It's just misuse of a term.

If in principle something is called "pay to win" because they have to "shell out money" to some degree or another in order to stay competitive then in principle all MMO games that sell expansions that offer clear advantages to those who buy them are engaging in "pay to win" to some extent or another. You seem to be drawing an arbitrary line in the sand to suit your own personal level of purchasing power. For you the usual cost of an expansion (60 dollars) might be nothing to spend on a video game but as I said earlier for others ten thousand dollars is nothing to spend on a video game. Would you call their spending habits "pay to win" and yours not? What is the difference except in nominal cost?

> No one calls WoW pay to win, even though every expansion that comes out allows you to beat people who don't have it. Just the way it is. But people don't use the term.

Then they're being logically inconsistent and drawing a convenient arbitrary line in the sand that suits their own level of purchasing power. They can afford the cost of the expansions and so they have no issues with paying for them but they're still paying for a clear advantage over someone who doesn't buy them whether they realize it or not. In the case of GW2 the advantage of those who buy the expansions versus those who do not is enormous. Just because you can afford to pay for that advantage doesn't make it any less of an advantage. A rose by any other name.

> By interpreting it literally you're simply removing it's meaning. By your definition I can find pay to win elements in every single MMO in existence, which one would think would limit the usefulness of the term. By using it to describe all MMOs, how are you actually adding to the conversation?

I'm not removing its meaning I'm simply removing its arbitrary boundaries and applying it consistently across the board wherever I think the principle conditions are met.

Indeed all MMOs I've played have been pay to win to some extent or another. GW2 included. The difference between games is the degree to which are they pay to win and the nominal cost of the buy in so to speak. I can afford the cost of the buy in for gw2 I cannot afford the buy in cost of a game like BDO or AA where it might cost thousands of dollars to be competitive but then there are games like EVE where I've heard that some people have been willing to drop tens of thousands of dollars to be competitive. It's all pay to win but it exists on a spectrum. Relative to other games the buy in for gw2 is much more affordable for someone like me but I'm still paying money on a regular basis to stay competitive.