Transfer is a p2w option, do you agree?

[ArchonWing.9480]

Yes, in the current state of the game, this is absolutely true. It kind of sucks because there are certainly many other reasons to transfer, maybe you just can't work with the people or just hate their guts but without a doubt at the end of the day people like to win regardless of how stupid or petty it is. To those of you who wonder why people chase you 10:1 across the map, this is why. They "won"; it doesn't matter that nobody cares how good you are in 10v1. But in any case, making it that easy has not helped.... though I would guess people would exploit any number of loopholes that show up.... and they have.

 

Though as pointed out earlier in this thread, it's for the sake of some extra chests and the scoreboard which few look at it. It could be considered Pay to Fail in these cases, considering the investment, at least from my viewpoint.

 

In an ideal world, situations would be balanced enough so that people would just transfer out of preference as opposed to advantage. This probably doesn't exist in reality though.

[SkyShroud.2865]

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> It will become irrelevant in the future anyway, with the Alliances system coming into play whenever it does servers will no longer be a thing in the game.

 

I know some people will put this up but regardless, is for discussion sake.

 

 

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> Also keep in mind, this has been something that has been on the game pretty much since it released back in 2012, to imply that it is pay to win or has become pay to win simply because people "consolidated power" holds no bearing on their own individual performance in the game and isn't making them win. What personal advantage are they gaining by transferring servers exactly? I think you're stretching the definition rather thin in this circumstance. You can transfer 100 people onto a tier 1 server yet those 100 people could still get run over in 3 seconds in a fight or be next to useless in roaming circumstances.

 

Honestly speaking, back then, there were always rumors of people using cash to sponsor people or even guilds to other servers. At that point, I did not pay any mind of it, perhaps because I came from f2p era, I mean there were mostly f2p mmorpg back then so all of these things are just so common that I subconsciously filter them out. However, recently there were someone talking about how he/she hate p2w thus gw2 is the best on map chat and then move on to transfer topic which mentioned he/she transferred, I was like isn't that p2w?

 

As for advantage? I think that is obvious if you compare a highly populated ones with a not so populated ones. Btw, advantage can be more than personal, it can also be group advantage. One way or another, it will still benefit related individuals but there are many forms of advantage.

 

> @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> People like to really stretch the most commonly perceived definition of pay to win to almost anything, personally I see pay to win as the literal translation of that phrase because that is exactly where it is derived from; literally paying to win (several MMORPGs in the past had ingame markets where you could directly buy gear more powerful than any gear you could acquire through gameplay). However like most phrases and such it has become misused and abused by the general public as a generic excuse for why they lost. Does it hold some accuracy in certain situations even with recent MMORPGs? Sure, but not with every scenario that its used in, not by a mile.

 

Coming from f2p era, I think you are totally mistaken what is p2w. Buying gear directly...I don't think many games do that, it is just the minority fail f2p games that do that. The most successful p2w games, successful in a way they milk the most money is through boosters items such exp, upgrades etc. In this generation, some people will even argue them as "pay for convenience" but it still doesn't change the nature of it.

 

> @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > P2w by my definition which shared by many other mmo players is as simple as "as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w".

> > through that defintion, gw2 indeed is p2w but due to its low gear cap, it is not a wealth vs wealth level p2w. however, can that be said for transfer since if a person want to, he can spend thousands just to move people.

> Then by that definition buying the game is already p2w and any subsequent aspects you consider p2w are a moot point, the condition have already been met. This is further proven by the fact that you cannot buy the game for anything but real cash, unlike transfers and everything on the TP that you can buy for gold converted to gems.

 

This is arguable because it is a buy to play model. If we exclude the f2p model which was introduced later on and revert to initial state of the game, then all of us actually b2p which means all of us still equal at that point.

 

> @"Vayne.8563" said:

> Nah. It's not pay to win. Even if it were, since you could buy a transfer with gold, you can play to get the gold to pay for the transfer, thus not paying real cash. Plenty of people farm gold efficiently to buy gems and never spend a cent on gems.

>

> That said, pay to win usually refers to power. That is to say your character itself is more powerful by something you buy in the cash shop. But I don't think this is any definition of pay to win I've ever heard.

>

> The tendency of this community to stretch the definition of pay to win further and further devalues the term and makes it less useful.

 

This is how f2p games also want you think, you see. They add items to item shops that can be bought by monetary means. They also add the same items that can be obtain through grind. However, have it ever cross your mind that p2w players too can grind therefore what a non-p2w players can do, they will be doing plus more. Such is why you can never chase up to p2w players. This is something you will understand if you ever play p2w games in-depth.

 

In this case, they can transfer more often then you who don't p2w.

[Blockhead Magee.3092]

If the need to 'win' at wvw causes people to give money to Anet - GOOD. I want the company to stay in business.

 

Thanks to you 'must win wvw' folks.

[KryTiKaL.3125]

@"SkyShroud.2865" No, many MMORPGs even from the "F2P era" have not done actual "buy gear in cash shop". Pay to win came from much earlier than that, where a number of MMORPGs actually had gear or other things available in the cash shop that you could buy that was better than any gear you could acquire through normal means of gameplay. Honestly the name of one in particular that directly did that is escaping me, but a larger number of earlier MMORPGs than you might expect, especially more browser based ones, had pay to win systems. Even more recent ones like Archeage fall into that category.

 

You have to look at the context in which this is being applied; what constitutes an advantage in this particular game? For instance, I wouldn't see "pay for convenience" things like boosters for exp as pay to win. In the context of GW2 an experience booster only helps so far when leveling and I'd say just hitting level 80 faster is far from giving someone an advantage over someone else. To be honest, people who have been at least playing sPvP or WvW for a while have stacks upon stacks of Tomes so they can just instantly get level 80 on another character if they wish. I have made at least 2 full stacks of Tomes from doing WvW and sPvP with no boosters that I've ever bought, only ones I've used are really only the Birthday ones.

 

Context is the key here, and context can change the nature of really anything **significantly**. Context is the difference between a comedian making a "racially insensitive" joke, poking fun at the ridiculousness of racial stereotypes, vs an actual racist, white supremacist or otherwise, saying these things to other people because they believe these things to be true.

 

So yes, context can very much change the nature of it.

 

Trying to classify a server transfer as "pay to win" is really stretching what the definition of "pay to win" actually is. Say you transfer to Blackgate on NA servers. Boom, you're there with a t1 world in WvW. You're also there fighting against the other two t1 servers in WvW. Does transferring to Blackgate suddenly make you a better player? Do you just suddenly start winning 1v1s? Suddenly winning 1v2s? 1v3s? Is your guild that you maybe transferred with or helped get transferred suddenly able to fight 10v20+ and win? Did you acquire some sort of special title for Blackgate placing first that particular week or weeks? Special cosmetics? A KitKat bar? Probably not. In fact its very unlikely that happened because that is not how that works.

 

What you are perceiving as some "pay to win" method is far away from being such and I think that is because, in your own words saying you've come from the "f2p era" of MMORPGs, you were exposed to the severe misuse of "pay to win" as a phrase or term.

[Vayne.8563]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > It will become irrelevant in the future anyway, with the Alliances system coming into play whenever it does servers will no longer be a thing in the game.

>

> I know some people will put this up but regardless, is for discussion sake.

>

>

> > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > Also keep in mind, this has been something that has been on the game pretty much since it released back in 2012, to imply that it is pay to win or has become pay to win simply because people "consolidated power" holds no bearing on their own individual performance in the game and isn't making them win. What personal advantage are they gaining by transferring servers exactly? I think you're stretching the definition rather thin in this circumstance. You can transfer 100 people onto a tier 1 server yet those 100 people could still get run over in 3 seconds in a fight or be next to useless in roaming circumstances.

>

> Honestly speaking, back then, there were always rumors of people using cash to sponsor people or even guilds to other servers. At that point, I did not pay any mind of it, perhaps because I came from f2p era, I mean there were mostly f2p mmorpg back then so all of these things are just so common that I subconsciously filter them out. However, recently there were someone talking about how he/she hate p2w thus gw2 is the best on map chat and then move on to transfer topic which mentioned he/she transferred, I was like isn't that p2w?

>

> As for advantage? I think that is obvious if you compare a highly populated ones with a not so populated ones. Btw, advantage can be more than personal, it can also be group advantage. One way or another, it will still benefit related individuals but there are many forms of advantage.

>

> > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said:

> > People like to really stretch the most commonly perceived definition of pay to win to almost anything, personally I see pay to win as the literal translation of that phrase because that is exactly where it is derived from; literally paying to win (several MMORPGs in the past had ingame markets where you could directly buy gear more powerful than any gear you could acquire through gameplay). However like most phrases and such it has become misused and abused by the general public as a generic excuse for why they lost. Does it hold some accuracy in certain situations even with recent MMORPGs? Sure, but not with every scenario that its used in, not by a mile.

>

> Coming from f2p era, I think you are totally mistaken what is p2w. Buying gear directly...I don't think many games do that, it is just the minority fail f2p games that do that. The most successful p2w games, successful in a way they milk the most money is through boosters items such exp, upgrades etc. In this generation, some people will even argue them as "pay for convenience" but it still doesn't change the nature of it.

>

> > @"Dawdler.8521" said:

> > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> > > P2w by my definition which shared by many other mmo players is as simple as "as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w".

> > > through that defintion, gw2 indeed is p2w but due to its low gear cap, it is not a wealth vs wealth level p2w. however, can that be said for transfer since if a person want to, he can spend thousands just to move people.

> > Then by that definition buying the game is already p2w and any subsequent aspects you consider p2w are a moot point, the condition have already been met. This is further proven by the fact that you cannot buy the game for anything but real cash, unlike transfers and everything on the TP that you can buy for gold converted to gems.

>

> This is arguable because it is a buy to play model. If we exclude the f2p model which was introduced later on and revert to initial state of the game, then all of us actually b2p which means all of us still equal at that point.

>

> > @"Vayne.8563" said:

> > Nah. It's not pay to win. Even if it were, since you could buy a transfer with gold, you can play to get the gold to pay for the transfer, thus not paying real cash. Plenty of people farm gold efficiently to buy gems and never spend a cent on gems.

> >

> > That said, pay to win usually refers to power. That is to say your character itself is more powerful by something you buy in the cash shop. But I don't think this is any definition of pay to win I've ever heard.

> >

> > The tendency of this community to stretch the definition of pay to win further and further devalues the term and makes it less useful.

>

> This is how f2p games also want you think, you see. They add items to item shops that can be bought by monetary means. They also add the same items that can be obtain through grind. However, have it ever cross your mind that p2w players too can grind therefore what a non-p2w players can do, they will be doing plus more. Such is why you can never chase up to p2w players. This is something you will understand if you ever play p2w games in-depth.

>

> In this case, they can transfer more often then you who don't p2w.

 

Pay to win refers to things you can't get by playing the game. If you need say potions to stay alive and the person with more potions wins battles, that would be pay to win. Because you can get more potions if you grind. Or the most powerful weapons, which give you an in game combat advantage. That's pay to win.

 

When this game started, transfers were free and do you know who complained about it the most? WvW players. Why? Because having free transfers allowed spies to come over more easily, and allowed people to bandwagon more easily. The WvW community wanted it to be harder to transfer. Not quite the definition of pay to win most people would use.

[Swagger.1459]

This thread is a ridiculous...

 

1. The system is changing anyway so I don’t know why all the QQ about servers and stacking and transfers is going on...

 

2. You win nothing of substance by transferring to a better server, except for maybe a better experience... Reward track stuff and skirmish tickets are time and participation gated, it’s not like you “win” anything just because your server, most with links, gets anything for being the mighty 1st place winner.

 

Sad.

[Ansau.7326]

> @"SkyShroud.2865" said:

> Coming from f2p era, I think you are totally mistaken what is p2w. Buying gear directly...I don't think many games do that, it is just the minority fail f2p games that do that. The most successful p2w games, successful in a way they milk the most money is through boosters items such exp, upgrades etc. In this generation, some people will even argue them as "pay for convenience" but it still doesn't change the nature of it.

> This is how f2p games also want you think, you see. They add items to item shops that can be bought by monetary means. They also add the same items that can be obtain through grind. However, have it ever cross your mind that p2w players too can grind therefore what a non-p2w players can do, they will be doing plus more. Such is why you can never chase up to p2w players. This is something you will understand if you ever play p2w games in-depth.

> In this case, they can transfer more often then you who don't p2w.

 

It's clear that you idea of p2w based on an outdated conception and experience makes any of your opinions irrelevant.

Today we have clear, defined and well known examples of p2w mmos: Archeage, Black Desert Online, Age of Wushu... These games (all 3 examples were released in the past 5 years) have a common characteristic: Either you prepare your wallet to drop hunderds of €/$ or stop thinking having the remote chance to be able to compete in anything.

 

And sir, that is the current meaning of p2w.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> This thread is a ridiculous...

>

> 1. The system is changing anyway so I don’t know why all the QQ about servers and stacking and transfers is going on...

>

> 2. You win nothing of substance by transferring to a better server, except for maybe a better experience... Reward track stuff and skirmish tickets are time and participation gated, it’s not like you “win” anything just because your server, most with links, gets anything for being the mighty 1st place winner.

>

> Sad.

 

This is a sort of clever moving of the goalposts argument so points for that.

 

It's wrong btw if you've ever been on a winning server, particularly one that's steamrolling as I have been, you know that everything is easier and you get more stuff with much less effort than you do otherwise.

[ReaverKane.7598]

Your assessment is flawed. It's only "p2w", not by design, but because the community made it so, by flocking to the winning servers instead of trying to improve their own server's win rate.

The cost is a deterrent, a means to reduce the number of people that do so, it is not actively encouraged for players to join full servers, it's actually the opposite, they often mark servers as full even if they really aren't, simply based on the WvW pop.

Finally even if you "win" WvW matches through your server, you don't really win anything personally. They have removed any benefits from those wins long ago. At best you'll have a boost of a couple pips per tick, you'd have more from playing on a smaller server from the outnumbered bonus.

Also, this, already irrelevant question will be deemed more irrelevant once the future changes are implemented. Honestly if you think that they use WvW to make money you're fooling yourself.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > This thread is a ridiculous...

> >

> > 1. The system is changing anyway so I don’t know why all the QQ about servers and stacking and transfers is going on...

> >

> > 2. You win nothing of substance by transferring to a better server, except for maybe a better experience... Reward track stuff and skirmish tickets are time and participation gated, it’s not like you “win” anything just because your server, most with links, gets anything for being the mighty 1st place winner.

> >

> > Sad.

>

> This is a sort of clever moving of the goalposts argument so points for that.

>

> It's wrong btw if you've ever been on a winning server, particularly one that's steamrolling as I have been, you know that everything is easier and you get more stuff with much less effort than you do otherwise.

 

“Moving goalposts” from the person who came up with a new application for a phrase to suit their flawed and shallow argument... right...

 

And no, sorry, but if you are going to make up an argument that transfers are “pay to win” then it’s your responsibility to clearly state what you do “win”... You should spend less time trying to redefine “pay to win” and more time defining what you think you “win” by transferring and make a rational argument.

 

“More stuff” lol you can’t even define “stuff”... like what? Greens and blues and badges of honor are winning something special? I get more valuable rewards on dead maps faster than your “stuff” junk bags on busy maps... Players don’t win anything by being the match winner either, unless you know about some super special winners rewards that none of us don’t?

 

Is the next argument going to be that buying extra bag slots and permanent salvaging tools are also “pay to win” because you can stay on the battle field longer and collect and hold more “stuff”?

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > This thread is a ridiculous...

> > >

> > > 1. The system is changing anyway so I don’t know why all the QQ about servers and stacking and transfers is going on...

> > >

> > > 2. You win nothing of substance by transferring to a better server, except for maybe a better experience... Reward track stuff and skirmish tickets are time and participation gated, it’s not like you “win” anything just because your server, most with links, gets anything for being the mighty 1st place winner.

> > >

> > > Sad.

> >

> > This is a sort of clever moving of the goalposts argument so points for that.

> >

> > It's wrong btw if you've ever been on a winning server, particularly one that's steamrolling as I have been, you know that everything is easier and you get more stuff with much less effort than you do otherwise.

>

> “Moving goalposts” from the person who came up with a new application for a phrase to suit their flawed and shallow argument... right...

>

> And no, sorry, but if you are going to make up an argument that transfers are “pay to win” then it’s your responsibility to clearly state what you do “win”... You should spend less time trying to redefine “pay to win” and more time defining what you think you “win” by transferring and make a rational argument.

>

> “More stuff” lol you can’t even define “stuff”... like what? Greens and blues and badges of honor are winning something special? I get more valuable rewards on dead maps faster than your “stuff” junk bags on busy maps... Players don’t win anything by being the match winner either, unless you know about some super special winners rewards that none of us don’t?

>

> Is the next argument going to be that buying extra bag slots and permanent salvaging tools are also “pay to win” because you can stay on the battle field longer and collect and hold more “stuff”?

 

You moved the goalposts by tacitly conceding the argument and trying to change the focus to be about what is actually won by winning a matchup rather than whether or not one can pay to transfer to an easily won matchup in the first place and whether or not that counts as p2w.

 

There are tangible and intangible benefits to being on a winning server but that's not what the thread is actually about.

 

A slightly clever tactic but an obvious one. Nice try better luck next time bro.

[CrimsonNeonite.1048]

That's how it's always been though, even when transfer fees were quite high for T1 servers, people would always find a way. Besides the moments where anet gave players incentive to move/stack on servers, outside the WvW seasons and certain moments, like when SFR was somehow medium population during spring 2013.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > This thread is a ridiculous...

> > > >

> > > > 1. The system is changing anyway so I don’t know why all the QQ about servers and stacking and transfers is going on...

> > > >

> > > > 2. You win nothing of substance by transferring to a better server, except for maybe a better experience... Reward track stuff and skirmish tickets are time and participation gated, it’s not like you “win” anything just because your server, most with links, gets anything for being the mighty 1st place winner.

> > > >

> > > > Sad.

> > >

> > > This is a sort of clever moving of the goalposts argument so points for that.

> > >

> > > It's wrong btw if you've ever been on a winning server, particularly one that's steamrolling as I have been, you know that everything is easier and you get more stuff with much less effort than you do otherwise.

> >

> > “Moving goalposts” from the person who came up with a new application for a phrase to suit their flawed and shallow argument... right...

> >

> > And no, sorry, but if you are going to make up an argument that transfers are “pay to win” then it’s your responsibility to clearly state what you do “win”... You should spend less time trying to redefine “pay to win” and more time defining what you think you “win” by transferring and make a rational argument.

> >

> > “More stuff” lol you can’t even define “stuff”... like what? Greens and blues and badges of honor are winning something special? I get more valuable rewards on dead maps faster than your “stuff” junk bags on busy maps... Players don’t win anything by being the match winner either, unless you know about some super special winners rewards that none of us don’t?

> >

> > Is the next argument going to be that buying extra bag slots and permanent salvaging tools are also “pay to win” because you can stay on the battle field longer and collect and hold more “stuff”?

>

> You moved the goalposts by tacitly conceding the argument and trying to change the focus to be about what is actually won by winning a matchup rather than whether or not one can pay to transfer to an easily won matchup in the first place and whether or not that counts as p2w.

>

> There are tangible and intangible benefits to being on a winning server but that's not what the thread is actually about.

>

> A slightly clever tactic but an obvious one. Nice try better luck next time bro.

 

So you have no real argument... as expected.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> So you have no real argument... as expected.

 

Actually it would seem that you don't have an argument that's relevant to the actual question at hand since you already effectively conceded the OP's point and then proceeded to try to distract everyone with a moving goalpost fallacy.

 

The OP's argument can be stated as follows: players can pay money to transfer> transfers can be used to move to a more favorable matchup and/or an easily won matchup> paid transfers are a form of p2w.

 

Your response could be stated as follows: yes players can pay to transfer > transfers can indeed be used to move to a favorable matchup and/or easily won matchup > paid transfers are probably a form of p2w> it doesn't matter if transfers are p2w because one doesn't win anything particularly valuable for winning a matchup.

 

You see? It moves the goalposts by attempting to recenter the discussion around a subtly different question than the one that was actually asked.

 

I do think there are enormous benefits both material and immaterial to being on a winning server particularly one that's steamrolling the opposition as I have been on two of them in the time I've played this game but that's not what this thread is actually about.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > So you have no real argument... as expected.

>

> Actually it would seem that you don't have an argument that's relevant to the actual question at hand since you already effectively conceded the OP's point and then proceeded to try to distract everyone with a moving goalpost fallacy.

>

> The OP's argument can be stated as follows: players can pay money to transfer> transfers can be used to move to a more favorable matchup and/or an easily won matchup> paid transfers are a form of p2w.

>

> Your response could be stated as follows: yes players can pay to transfer > transfers can indeed be used to move to a favorable matchup and/or easily won matchup > paid transfers are probably a form of p2w> it doesn't matter if transfers are p2w because one doesn't win anything particularly valuable for winning a matchup.

>

> You see? It moves the goalposts by attempting to recenter the discussion around a subtly different question than the one that was actually asked.

>

> I do think there are enormous benefits both material and immaterial to being on a winning server particularly one that's steamrolling the opposition as I have been on two of them in the time I've played this game but that's not what this thread is actually about.

 

I like how you deflect and can’t answer the hard questions...

 

You’re free to keep trying so hard and grasping at straws to make up some augment, but you’re not looking good so far...

[sephiroth.4217]

Guilds I'm in usually transfer servers because the fights died and just want to be in an active match up.

People then flame about pay to win and all sorts of junk and make their own assumptions even when told why...

"we're moving servers because the match up is dead" > "No YoUr NoT, yoUR pAy To WiN!!"...

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > So you have no real argument... as expected.

> >

> > Actually it would seem that you don't have an argument that's relevant to the actual question at hand since you already effectively conceded the OP's point and then proceeded to try to distract everyone with a moving goalpost fallacy.

> >

> > The OP's argument can be stated as follows: players can pay money to transfer> transfers can be used to move to a more favorable matchup and/or an easily won matchup> paid transfers are a form of p2w.

> >

> > Your response could be stated as follows: yes players can pay to transfer > transfers can indeed be used to move to a favorable matchup and/or easily won matchup > paid transfers are probably a form of p2w> it doesn't matter if transfers are p2w because one doesn't win anything particularly valuable for winning a matchup.

> >

> > You see? It moves the goalposts by attempting to recenter the discussion around a subtly different question than the one that was actually asked.

> >

> > I do think there are enormous benefits both material and immaterial to being on a winning server particularly one that's steamrolling the opposition as I have been on two of them in the time I've played this game but that's not what this thread is actually about.

>

> I like how you deflect and can’t answer the hard questions...

>

> You’re free to keep trying so hard and grasping at straws to make up some augment, but you’re not looking good so far...

 

If you want to make your own thread to discuss that topic you're free to but please stop trying to derail this one with irrelevant arguments you're not adding anything constructive or useful to the conversation.

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > So you have no real argument... as expected.

> > >

> > > Actually it would seem that you don't have an argument that's relevant to the actual question at hand since you already effectively conceded the OP's point and then proceeded to try to distract everyone with a moving goalpost fallacy.

> > >

> > > The OP's argument can be stated as follows: players can pay money to transfer> transfers can be used to move to a more favorable matchup and/or an easily won matchup> paid transfers are a form of p2w.

> > >

> > > Your response could be stated as follows: yes players can pay to transfer > transfers can indeed be used to move to a favorable matchup and/or easily won matchup > paid transfers are probably a form of p2w> it doesn't matter if transfers are p2w because one doesn't win anything particularly valuable for winning a matchup.

> > >

> > > You see? It moves the goalposts by attempting to recenter the discussion around a subtly different question than the one that was actually asked.

> > >

> > > I do think there are enormous benefits both material and immaterial to being on a winning server particularly one that's steamrolling the opposition as I have been on two of them in the time I've played this game but that's not what this thread is actually about.

> >

> > I like how you deflect and can’t answer the hard questions...

> >

> > You’re free to keep trying so hard and grasping at straws to make up some augment, but you’re not looking good so far...

>

> If you want to make your own thread to discuss that topic you're free to but please stop trying to derail this one with irrelevant arguments you're not adding anything constructive or useful to the conversation.

 

No no, how about you clearly articulate what 1 person truly and meaningfully “wins” for transferring over another instead of deflecting and making strawman arguments.

 

And if you feel so strongly about this pay to win junk then why don’t you try to come up with a real argument so we can get the devs to change their supposed “pay to win” scheme made for players so they can suck money from them... Really, it’s not me you have to convince... not like you could with your poorly thought out arguments of a players wins “stuff” and can proclaim they are the awesome #1 winner of a match up...

 

Let’s see exactly what you would tell a developer in charge of this? Hmmm?

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> No no, how about you clearly articulate what 1 person truly and meaningfully “wins” for transferring over another instead of deflecting and making strawman arguments.

 

I've already demonstrated why I don't need to do that in this thread. If you want to make another thread about it I'll gladly make a list for you.

 

> And if you feel so strongly about this pay to win junk then why don’t you try to come up with a real argument so we can get the devs to change their supposed “pay to win” scheme made for players so they can suck money from them... Really, it’s not me you have to convince... not like you could with your poorly thought out arguments.

 

I don't personally have any problem with pay to win in video games. I wouldn't necessarily tell them to change anything.

 

> Let’s see exactly what you would tell a developer in charge of this? Hmmm?

 

They made a smart system that's been very good at siphoning real money from WvW players.

 

[Swagger.1459]

> @"Israel.7056" said:

> > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > No no, how about you clearly articulate what 1 person truly and meaningfully “wins” for transferring over another instead of deflecting and making strawman arguments.

>

> I've already demonstrated why I don't need to do that in this thread. If you want to make another thread about it I'll gladly make a list for you.

>

> > And if you feel so strongly about this pay to win junk then why don’t you try to come up with a real argument so we can get the devs to change their supposed “pay to win” scheme made for players so they can suck money from them... Really, it’s not me you have to convince... not like you could with your poorly thought out arguments.

>

> I don't personally have any problem with pay to win in video games. I wouldn't necessarily tell them to change anything.

>

> > Let’s see exactly what you would tell a developer in charge of this? Hmmm?

>

> They made a smart system that's been very good at siphoning real money from WvW players.

>

 

No no, if you are claiming server transfers are pay to win then it is your responsibility to clearly articulate exactly what someone wins... Without that you have zero argument...

 

Ok, so that’s the clearest argument you’ve presented... “They made a smart system that's been very good at siphoning real money from WvW players.”... So now let’s ask @"Gaile Gray.6029" for her perspective on the matter, and the accusation that server transfers are to scam players for money.

[Israel.7056]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> No no, if you are claiming server transfers are pay to win then it is your responsibility to clearly articulate exactly what someone wins... Without that you have zero argument...

 

Clever. Subtly moving the goalposts again. They win the matchup but that's not what you were asking. You were asking what does one actually win for winning the matchup. That's a different question. You're a little clever I'll give you that but not as clever as you seem to think.

 

> Ok, so that’s the clearest argument you’ve presented... “They made a smart system that's been very good at siphoning real money from WvW players.”... So now let’s ask @"Gaile Gray.6029" for her perspective on the matter, and the accusation...

 

Lol yikes dude that wasn't an argument or an accusation it was a factual claim. If she decides to post she could either say "yes we've made money from selling gems for transfers" or "no we haven't made any money from selling gems for transfers" in response. That's all.

[ArchonWing.9480]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > @"Israel.7056" said:

> > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

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

> > > > > @"Swagger.1459" said:

> > > > > So you have no real argument... as expected.

> > > >

> > > > Actually it would seem that you don't have an argument that's relevant to the actual question at hand since you already effectively conceded the OP's point and then proceeded to try to distract everyone with a moving goalpost fallacy.

> > > >

> > > > The OP's argument can be stated as follows: players can pay money to transfer> transfers can be used to move to a more favorable matchup and/or an easily won matchup> paid transfers are a form of p2w.

> > > >

> > > > Your response could be stated as follows: yes players can pay to transfer > transfers can indeed be used to move to a favorable matchup and/or easily won matchup > paid transfers are probably a form of p2w> it doesn't matter if transfers are p2w because one doesn't win anything particularly valuable for winning a matchup.

> > > >

> > > > You see? It moves the goalposts by attempting to recenter the discussion around a subtly different question than the one that was actually asked.

> > > >

> > > > I do think there are enormous benefits both material and immaterial to being on a winning server particularly one that's steamrolling the opposition as I have been on two of them in the time I've played this game but that's not what this thread is actually about.

> > >

> > > I like how you deflect and can’t answer the hard questions...

> > >

> > > You’re free to keep trying so hard and grasping at straws to make up some augment, but you’re not looking good so far...

> >

> > If you want to make your own thread to discuss that topic you're free to but please stop trying to derail this one with irrelevant arguments you're not adding anything constructive or useful to the conversation.

>

> No no, how about you clearly articulate what 1 person truly and meaningfully “wins” for transferring over another instead of deflecting and making strawman arguments.

>

> And if you feel so strongly about this pay to win junk then why don’t you try to come up with a real argument so we can get the devs to change their supposed “pay to win” scheme made for players so they can suck money from them... Really, it’s not me you have to convince... not like you could with your poorly thought out arguments of a players wins “stuff” and can proclaim they are the awesome #1 winner of a match up...

>

> Let’s see exactly what you would tell a developer in charge of this? Hmmm?

 

 

By transferring to a winning server, as the game is designed, then they would be part of the winning party.

 

Whether or not winning in WvW actually means anything, is another issue. Though I would say if achieving the goal of the gamemode is so cheap, does not speak well of the game mode..

 

In any case, one is going to have an easier time in general doing things in WvW if they are on a strong server. There will be more activity and more people and groups to play with and follow, and fights will be organized and more efficient. On a basic level, it would be easier to gain world rank and other rewards such as the Gift of Battle track that can't be earned anywhere else outside of WvW, and thus do impact all kinds of players. So there are only advantages to be on a higher ranked server, barring queues.

 

Compared against other gem store purchases, say bag slots, transferring is limited by full servers. So while everyone can always buy bag slots, the opportunity to transfer to a certain server is not always there.

[Israel.7056]

> @"ArchonWing.9480" said:

> By transferring to a winning server, as the game is designed, then they would be part of the winning party.

> Whether or not winning in WvW actually means anything, is another issue.

 

Hallelujah!

[Kirnale.5914]

For me, it's a simple term: To gain something **unique**, that you cannot ever farm even with 1000s of hours gameplay, that **puts you above other players if you attain it.** If there was such a unique item to win in T1, then transfers would be easily p2w. But even with that kind of reward, it is still questionable whether it is indeed p2w or not, since you can simply farm gold to transfer instead of using real currency. Currently, the only thing you gain is 'better" gaming experience and more lootbags. But since more gold doesn't help you win against other players, transfering wouldn't result in a p2w aspect. You gain x-times more gold in pve anyways. 'Better' gaming experience really depends on the person. Some like it in tier 5, other prefer it in higher or even top tier server, it really depends on what you are looking for. In my case, T4-T2 is the better choice, since you can play against a different server setup each week.

 

Just seriously, what people considers pay to win nowdays... last time it was even about buying expansion = p2w....

[Israel.7056]

> @"Kirnale.5914" said:

> For me, it's a simple term: To gain something **unique**, that you cannot ever farm even with 1000s of hours gameplay, that **puts you above other players if you attain it.** If there was such a unique item to win in T1, then transfers would be easily p2w. But even with that kind of reward, it is still questionable whether it is indeed p2w or not, since you can simply farm gold to transfer instead of using real currency. Currently, the only thing you gain is 'better" gaming experience and more lootbags. But since more gold doesn't help you win against other players, transfering wouldn't result in a p2w aspect. You gain x-times more gold in pve anyways. 'Better' gaming experience really depends on the person. Some like it in tier 5, other prefer it in higher or even top tier server, it really depends on what you are looking for. In my case, T4-T2 is the better choice, since you can play against a different server setup each week.

>

> Just seriously, what people considers pay to win nowdays... last time it was even about buying expansion = p2w....

 

The essential characteristics of pay to win are conveyed effectively in the term itself:

 

1. Costs money

2. Gives competitive advantage

 

That's really all there is to it. The added hurdles you've stipulated here are arbitrary. Why 1000 hours? Why not 5000? 10000?

 

I think more people are beginning to wake up to the realization that all online games have some amount of this sort of transaction present and that the difference between games is in the degree to which pay to win is prevalent and the cost to stay competitive. So everyone just needs to be clear with themselves about how much money they're willing to spend going in.

 

Games are businesses first and foremost. I don't begrudge anyone for trying to make money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pay to win in video games. Just call things what they are.