SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > @"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. Just for your info, I play games as early as MUDs. Likewise, I have gave my definition of p2w which again I shall re-illiterate, shared by many players. The definition is simple as it is therefore "pay for convenience" is thus seen as poor justification for "pay to win". A advantage is a advantage, using a context as basis of argument is not going to change the nature of the advantage gained via monetary means. You still have the advantage. As for "Suddenly winning 1v2s? 1v3s?" Honestly, I have seen guilds suddenly winning after they transfer, no joke. Not because of their original members but because of the new additional gain from the server. Furthermore, who say that transferring to higher tier server is the only p2w way? You can sponsor players down to your lower tier server. > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"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. You seems to be trying to redefine p2w. There is a popular mobile game called "Rise of Civilizations" and plenty of others. Many call them p2w, you still can get items via grinding. I think you already contradicting the norm. A definition that cannot be applied to all is an incorrect definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReaverKane.7598 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"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 It does cost money... > 2. Gives competitive advantage What competitive advantage? Seriously, illustrate where being in a T1 server (assuming you're not blocked by the "server full" algorythm). > > 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. > Well, its called what it is... It's a Moderation Fee, a cost imposed on an action that would otherwise be free if it wasn't likely to be abused to prevent such abuse. If gamers weren't lazy bastards, nothing in the server transfer system would entail any kind of advantage, since ideally we'd be spread even. The only reason there's any apparent advantage, which isn't one by the way, is because players are lazy and will cluster on the winning team, instead of carrying their server to victory. You can't call it P2W, since it was never designed to give an advantage, that advantage is entirely created by the community, and the devs are actively working on ending that advantage, actually. Also, being on a T1 server brings no inherent advantage at this point. Also, this day and age, being on the #1 server is no different from being in the #12 server in terms of bling, prestige or any other metric. You might have more access to zergs, or you might just have better access to a larger queue and wait times for access to the content. You basically have no argument, besides a edgewise, and personal interpretation of a very loose term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"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. > I said "1000s" of hours, not exactly 1000 hours, there is a difference in context there, read carefully before you point that out. And the point of it was to say that no matter how much you farm, you cannot gain it. If outfits were to give you 10% more stats and the only way to receive it is by paying 20€ or $, then that clearly pay to win. And no, pay to win is not okay in a competitive scene. If games like CS or Dota were pay to win, they wouldn't be as successful as they are nowdays. 'Pay for convinience' plus buy to play is still the best method I've seen, as the company still gets money through the game sales and the cash shop to keep it going. At the same time it won't have a balance mess between top casher and no casher. It would instantly destroy the competitive scene otherwise. That's why the best games don't include that. And about the two points you mentioned, they were already in my post. And ofc games are business etc., but that have nothing to do with my post if that was directed at me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riko.9214 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 p2w as its classic meaning it is not. Mainly because the direct advantage you get is just winning the matchup which is pretty meaningless. It is though "pay to have your fun on account of others" as I would call it. It is 100x more frustrating to be on steamrolled side, it is 100x more times difficult and tiring to try to get anything done when enemy outnumbers you 10 to 1 constantly on every map. Also why people talk about tires? It has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with being on the steamrolling/steamrolled side of current matchup. On the other note they seem to slooooooowly mooooooving to address that so mb soon we will not have to pay and constantly flip servers just to get better experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Riko.9214" said: > p2w as its classic meaning it is not. Mainly because the direct advantage you get is just winning the matchup which is pretty meaningless. > > It is though "pay to have your fun on account of others" as I would call it. It is 100x more frustrating to be on steamrolled side, it is 100x more times difficult and tiring to try to get anything done when enemy outnumbers you 10 to 1 constantly on every map. > > Also why people talk about tires? It has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with being on the steamrolling/steamrolled side of current matchup. > > On the other note they seem to slooooooowly mooooooving to address that so mb soon we will not have to pay and constantly flip servers just to get better experience. On the other hand, it is insanely boring on the side with larger force. Just running over 10 people with 70 all the time would quickly make me quit, because it bore the crap out of me. It is also really annoying to have a queue on a map you wish to play in. Another reason is the amount of leecher/afks on higher pop server. I've seen a 25 people squad with queue on the map, and he cannot get more people because these people are 'afking' somewhere. Not to mention, the chat get's more toxic the more people you 'stuff' together, there are exceptions though. But hey, at least they are working on something. Compared to the past, where they worked on nothing, it is by far better to know that something is coming, even if it's a slow process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"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. Burden of Proof. Look it up. Want to make a case for Anet by stating server transfers are "pay to win" then YOU need to clearly prove and lay out why. I'm not the one making the claim, YOU are. And basically all you are doing is providing some vague and redefined definition of "pay to win" to reinforce some strawman argument here. You can get philosophical all you want, but in essence you are reaching here. You are attempting to create a narrative to make anet look bad for a service they provide to their players. But you don't look at it that way, you look at transfers as some money grab scheme by anet so players can declare themselves the super cool winners of a gw2 wvw match up ego wars and some green, blue and badges "stuff" items... And no, you want to accuse anet of creating a server transfer system that is designed for "siphoning real money from wvw players", so you don't get to change your position here and pretend it was out of some innocent observation… You are being petty, and ultimately accusing anet of some carefully planned cash grab scheme on customers. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"ReaverKane.7598" said: > What competitive advantage? > Seriously, illustrate where being in a T1 server (assuming you're not blocked by the "server full" algorythm). Who said anything about t1? I didn't. More semi clever moving of the goal posts. Now it's not just winning a matchup but winning the t1 matchup. Clever. The competitive advantages one can get from transferring are myriad and diverse and so appeal differently to different players. For some it's access to an easier matchup or in many cases to an almost guaranteed win, that's the most obvious form of pay to win. But sometimes it's to be paired with guilds they'd rather fight with than against or it's access to better pugs so they can run open and demolish everything in their path every time they play. Sometimes it's to have access to 24/7 coverage so they can k train most of the day. There's something for everyone. > Well, its called what it is... It's a Moderation Fee, a cost imposed on an action that would otherwise be free if it wasn't likely to be abused to prevent such abuse. Lol lovely euphemistic language. It's a fee that siphons money from players when they transfer around. An ingenious way of taxing players for their willingness to pay to win. Transfers, free or paid, are going to be abused no matter what I don't know how anyone could be so naive as to think otherwise and I doubt they were so naive as to think otherwise. There's no price some people won't pay to win. If they had been serious about creating a competitive environment they wouldn't have allowed transfers in the first place and they would have moved guilds around manually to try to fill coverage gaps. But that would've taken time and players would've made a big fuss over the imposition and I think they also just realized that they could make a lot more money off paid transfers. Good for them. > If gamers weren't lazy bastards, nothing in the server transfer system would entail any kind of advantage, since ideally we'd be spread even. The only reason there's any apparent advantage, which isn't one by the way, is because players are lazy and will cluster on the winning team, instead of carrying their server to victory. It's not an issue of laziness it's an issue of efficiency and humans are very good at identifying efficient paths to victory. Why work hard to win when you can just pay to transfer to win? > You can't call it P2W, since it was never designed to give an advantage, that advantage is entirely created by the community, and the devs are actively working on ending that advantage, actually. It doesn't matter what it was intended to do. What matters is what it does. Perhaps they were foolish enough to think that people wouldn't pay money just to win easy. I tend to think they're much smarter than that and they just realized an easy way to monetize WvW players. > Also, being on a T1 server brings no inherent advantage at this point. Also, this day and age, being on the #1 server is no different from being in the #12 server in terms of bling, prestige or any other metric. You might have more access to zergs, or you might just have better access to a larger queue and wait times for access to the content. I never said anything about t1. This is more clever moving of the goal posts. Although to be frank t1 history is mostly the story of one particularly infamous server that overstacked hard early on and continues to reap the benefits of that to this day. I should know I was there for almost three years. Again the question of what one actually wins for winning is not relevant to this discussion. What matters is that one can pay to win. > You basically have no argument, besides a edgewise, and personal interpretation of a very loose term. I don't really see that you have an argument honestly, you haven't made any compelling objections here although presumably you think you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > Want to make a case for Anet by stating server transfers are "pay to win" then YOU need to clearly prove and lay out why. I'm not the one making the claim, YOU are. And basically all you are doing is providing some vague and redefined definition of "pay to win" to reinforce some strawman argument here. You can get philosophical all you want, but in essence you are reaching here. You are attempting to create a narrative to make anet look bad for a service they provide to their players. But you don't look at it that way, you look at transfers as some money grab scheme by anet so players can declare themselves the super cool winners of a gw2 wvw match up ego wars and some green, blue and badges "stuff" items... No you didn't ask me to prove why it was pay to win you asked me to demonstrate what one gets for winning. In doing so you tacitly conceded the principal argument. I don't have to demonstrate anything more to you as you've already conceded the point. I'm not trying to make Anet look bad. I have absolutely no issue with them making money. But I'm also not going to pretend that that's not what they're doing here. Every thing businesses do, every service they provide, every product they produce is a potential way to bring in revenue. This is no different. You may not personally care enough about winning to pay to win but it doesn't mean others don't, won't and haven't. This has been going on for years now, everyone knows it, stop trying to obfuscate the truth because you feel the need to defend this company against what you perceive as an attack of some sort. This is not an attack at least not from me. As i said before if you want to start a thread about a different discussion about what one gets for winning you're welcome to and I will more than gladly post there but you lost the principal argument with your initial post. Should be more careful next time. > And no, you want to accuse anet of creating a server transfer system that is designed for "siphoning real money from wvw players", so you don't get to change your position here and pretend it was out of some innocent observation… You are being petty, and ultimately accusing anet of some carefully planned cash grab scheme on customers. Sad. I haven't changed my position you just assumed something about my position that was never there to begin with. I also haven't accused them of anything except making money and by extension being a smart business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > I said "1000s" of hours, not exactly 1000 hours, there is a difference in context there, read carefully before you point that out. Ok fine still arbitrary. >And the point of it was to say that no matter how much you farm, you cannot gain it. So even if the player is given the option between say thousands of hours of work or a thousand dollars today you don't see that as pay to win? To be consistent you would have to say no because technically the item is farmable albeit months or maybe even years of work to get. To expand on this a little from personal experience. I used to play this game called Aion and I spent almost three years building one toon and I never got to BiS because it was heavily rng based and I just never got lucky the way I needed to and it still took thousands of hours to even get to where I was which wasn't very good. Then some people started selling BiS items for real money and the company allowed it and this one guy spent like 10k to suddenly have every BiS item in the game. To me that was paying to win because he outgeared pretty much everyone and he paid for that advantage. I mean the guy literally paid money to have the ultimate competitive advantage in game. By your definition though that wouldn't be pay to win because technically the items were acquirable in game but wouldn't you have called that paying to win? >If outfits were to give you 10% more stats and the only way to receive it is by paying 20€ or $, then that clearly pay to win. To me this is a difference in degree rather than kind. >And no, pay to win is not okay in a competitive scene. That's your opinion I don't personally take any issue with it I just don't play games that I can't afford to compete in. Some people have a lot more disposable income than I do and that's fine. >If games like CS or Dota were pay to win, they wouldn't be as successful as they are nowdays. Perhaps but so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > > I said "1000s" of hours, not exactly 1000 hours, there is a difference in context there, read carefully before you point that out. > > Ok fine still arbitrary. > > >And the point of it was to say that no matter how much you farm, you cannot gain it. > > So even if the player is given the option between say thousands of hours of work or a thousand dollars today you don't see that as pay to win? To be consistent you would have to say no because technically the item is farmable albeit months or maybe even years of work to get. > > To expand on this a little from personal experience. I used to play this game called Aion and I spent almost three years building one toon and I never got to BiS because it was heavily rng based and I just never got lucky the way I needed to and it still took thousands of hours to even get to where I was which wasn't very good. Then some people started selling BiS items for real money and the company allowed it and this one guy spent like 10k to suddenly have every BiS item in the game. To me that was paying to win because he outgeared pretty much everyone and he paid for that advantage. I mean the guy literally paid money to have the ultimate competitive advantage in game. By your definition though that wouldn't be pay to win because technically the items were acquirable in game but wouldn't you have called that paying to win? > > >If outfits were to give you 10% more stats and the only way to receive it is by paying 20€ or $, then that clearly pay to win. > > To me this is a difference in degree rather than kind. > > >And no, pay to win is not okay in a competitive scene. > > That's your opinion I don't personally take any issue with it I just don't play games that I can't afford to compete in. Some people have a lot more disposable income than I do and that's fine. > > >If games like CS or Dota were pay to win, they wouldn't be as successful as they are nowdays. > > Perhaps but so what? **The game only becomes truly competitive once you hit the gear cap, because starting from there, the only thing that can help you win against other 'capped' player is your own skill, the rest is pretty much the same as leveling up because you need to farm in pve for your new gear.** Time ofc does matter more or less. There isn't a clear definited time when thing becomes pay to win. When it takes years to farm and someone can get ahead of you in for example 1 minute, then that ofc **can** be considered pay to win, you are correct here, because the time difference is too great. At the same time, it means this game is all about pve grinding, instead of showcasing your skill in the competitive scene. You wouldn't see me in WvW, but rather in PvE all the time to get my gear, it will quickly become a PvE game rather than a competitive game. WvW would be dead empty this way. But in gw2's case, you quickly hit the cap and won't get any stronger afterwards, besides your own skill that you polish through time and experience. Transfering wouldn't help you either. The profits through transfering is nonexistance, there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. The definition of p2w might be questionable, but gw2 is definitely not p2w, otherwise you would see people complain the the pvp/wvw forum through all the years, which isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > Want to make a case for Anet by stating server transfers are "pay to win" then YOU need to clearly prove and lay out why. I'm not the one making the claim, YOU are. And basically all you are doing is providing some vague and redefined definition of "pay to win" to reinforce some strawman argument here. You can get philosophical all you want, but in essence you are reaching here. You are attempting to create a narrative to make anet look bad for a service they provide to their players. But you don't look at it that way, you look at transfers as some money grab scheme by anet so players can declare themselves the super cool winners of a gw2 wvw match up ego wars and some green, blue and badges "stuff" items... > > No you didn't ask me to prove why it was pay to win you asked me to demonstrate what one gets for winning. In doing so you tacitly conceded the principal argument. I don't have to demonstrate anything more to you as you've already conceded the point. > > I'm not trying to make Anet look bad. I have absolutely no issue with them making money. But I'm also not going to pretend that that's not what they're doing here. Every thing businesses do, every service they provide, every product they produce is a potential way to bring in revenue. This is no different. > > You may not personally care enough about winning to pay to win but it doesn't mean others don't, won't and haven't. This has been going on for years now, everyone knows it, stop trying to obfuscate the truth because you feel the need to defend this company against what you perceive as an attack of some sort. This is not an attack at least not from me. > > As i said before if you want to start a thread about a different discussion about what one gets for winning you're welcome to and I will more than gladly post there but you lost the principal argument with your initial post. Should be more careful next time. > > > And no, you want to accuse anet of creating a server transfer system that is designed for "siphoning real money from wvw players", so you don't get to change your position here and pretend it was out of some innocent observation… You are being petty, and ultimately accusing anet of some carefully planned cash grab scheme on customers. Sad. > > I haven't changed my position you just assumed something about my position that was never there to begin with. I also haven't accused them of anything except making money and by extension being a smart business. Deflecting isn’t helping you, nor does it make you look you know what you’re talking about.... I’d suggesting thinking more and spend less time trying to spin-doctor and play the semantics game. You’re certainly not ahead here or close to convincing anyone, let alone the devs, that server transfers are indeed “pay to win”... But I guess we are all entitled to make stuff up and redefine things to suit our argument right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > Time ofc does matter more or less. There isn't a clear definited time when thing becomes pay to win. When it takes years to farm and someone can get ahead of you in for example 1 minute, then that ofc **can** be considered pay to win, you are correct here, because the time difference is too great. At the same time, it means this game is all about pve grinding, instead of showcasing your skill in the competitive scene. You wouldn't see me in WvW, but rather in PvE all the time to get my gear, it will quickly become a PvE game rather than a competitive game. WvW would be dead empty this way. To me these stipulations about time and dollar amount are arbitrary. > Transfering wouldn't help you either. Untrue. >The profits through transfering is nonexistance Irrelevant. >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. Irrelevant. >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. Irrelevant. > The definition of p2w might be questionable, but gw2 is definitely not p2w, otherwise you would see people complain the the pvp/wvw forum through all the years, which isn't the case. I think gw2 definitely has p2w elements but it's relatively affordable compared to other MMOs. People have complained about this problem for years often in very circumspect language i.e just talking about population imbalances and coverage as a general problem without explicitly linking it all to transfers and then transfers to pay to win and once they banned matchup threads it became much harder to talk about this problem in anything but the vaguest terms because we can't specifically refer to instances of this happening in game without talking about specific servers where it's been most egregious. Also I think more people are just generally starting to think of pay to win more along the lines of how I see it which is good imo. Words can change in the way they're used over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > Deflecting isn’t helping you, nor does it make you look you know what you’re talking about.... I’d suggesting thinking more and spend less time trying to spin-doctor and play the semantics game. > > You’re certainly not ahead here or close to convincing anyone, let alone the devs, that server transfers are indeed “pay to win”... But I guess we are all entitled to make stuff up and redefine things to suit our argument right? Lol alright bud I've clearly spent a lot more time on you than you deserve. Again better luck next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > It doesn't matter what it was intended to do. What matters is what it does. Perhaps they were foolish enough to think that people wouldn't pay money just to win easy. I tend to think they're much smarter than that and they just realized an easy way to monetize WvW players. This I think is the biggest issue. It's fine if they want to make money, and probably a good idea. But as done, it helps fuel degenerate gameplay where being able to arbitrarily switch teams at the drop of a hat really cheapens the game mode. The model is at odds with good gameplay, and that to me is a problem. I also think it's amusing that people will readily admit to why the server system has failed, and coverage is the huge buzzword but this seems to get swept under the rugs. But not like it matters. We don't have to convince the devs anymore that it doesn't work, because it's already happened. The current system is already going to be a thing of the past. In the end we could always argue endlessly about the definition of p2w, but I think regardless of what's decided, it's ultimately something that ended up detrimental. And the link system has really allowed many of us to see how things are across tiers, and on other servers. There's a lot of casual players out there that are basically trapped into a nonexistent wvw experience because everyone has abandoned their servers, and they're stuck fighting NPCs .... unless they pay gold to transfer out. Regardless of what anyone calls that, I think that's sort of unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > @"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. Erm? P2w concept hasn't change for decades, it is as simple as it get. How many p2w games have you played thus far? Have you reached the late game of any of these p2w games that you have played? The thing that change isn't the definition of p2w, the thing that changed is people's tolerance to p2w therefore their acceptances towards certain p2w. However, I believe it is important not to be confused with acceptable p2w and not p2w. > @"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... I know some people will put this up but regardless, is for discussion sake. > @"Swagger.1459" said: > This thread is a ridiculous... > 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. That is contradictory in nature. You said "you win nothing of substance" and yet still put a "except"? So, is that a yes or is that a no? > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > > > I said "1000s" of hours, not exactly 1000 hours, there is a difference in context there, read carefully before you point that out. > > > > Ok fine still arbitrary. > > > > >And the point of it was to say that no matter how much you farm, you cannot gain it. > > > > So even if the player is given the option between say thousands of hours of work or a thousand dollars today you don't see that as pay to win? To be consistent you would have to say no because technically the item is farmable albeit months or maybe even years of work to get. > > > > To expand on this a little from personal experience. I used to play this game called Aion and I spent almost three years building one toon and I never got to BiS because it was heavily rng based and I just never got lucky the way I needed to and it still took thousands of hours to even get to where I was which wasn't very good. Then some people started selling BiS items for real money and the company allowed it and this one guy spent like 10k to suddenly have every BiS item in the game. To me that was paying to win because he outgeared pretty much everyone and he paid for that advantage. I mean the guy literally paid money to have the ultimate competitive advantage in game. By your definition though that wouldn't be pay to win because technically the items were acquirable in game but wouldn't you have called that paying to win? > > > > >If outfits were to give you 10% more stats and the only way to receive it is by paying 20€ or $, then that clearly pay to win. > > > > To me this is a difference in degree rather than kind. > > > > >And no, pay to win is not okay in a competitive scene. > > > > That's your opinion I don't personally take any issue with it I just don't play games that I can't afford to compete in. Some people have a lot more disposable income than I do and that's fine. > > > > >If games like CS or Dota were pay to win, they wouldn't be as successful as they are nowdays. > > > > Perhaps but so what? > > **The game only becomes truly competitive once you hit the gear cap, because starting from there, the only thing that can help you win against other 'capped' player is your own skill, the rest is pretty much the same as leveling up because you need to farm in pve for your new gear.** > Time ofc does matter more or less. There isn't a clear definited time when thing becomes pay to win. When it takes years to farm and someone can get ahead of you in for example 1 minute, then that ofc **can** be considered pay to win, you are correct here, because the time difference is too great. At the same time, it means this game is all about pve grinding, instead of showcasing your skill in the competitive scene. You wouldn't see me in WvW, but rather in PvE all the time to get my gear, it will quickly become a PvE game rather than a competitive game. WvW would be dead empty this way. > > But in gw2's case, you quickly hit the cap and won't get any stronger afterwards, besides your own skill that you polish through time and experience. Transfering wouldn't help you either. The profits through transfering is nonexistance, there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > The definition of p2w might be questionable, but gw2 is definitely not p2w, otherwise you would see people complain the the pvp/wvw forum through all the years, which isn't the case. That's double standard, isn't it? What you clearly stated is you consider this p2w acceptable, not because it isn't p2w. It is because you consider it as acceptable, therefore you decide it is not a p2w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansau.7326 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > Irrelevant. > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > Irrelevant. > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > Irrelevant. How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... What is a "winning server". What a "winning server" wins. What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > > > Irrelevant. > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... > > What is a "winning server". > What a "winning server" wins. > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... You win a better experience. You gain a group advantage therefore benefit individuals' experiences in that group, this come at the cost of other group's. To come to this conclusion, you need to have at least two actual comparison. Afterall, advantage and disadvantage are not something derived without at least two entities to compare to, it is not logical. This therefore means you need to actually compare the involved servers' before and after, likewise the involved groups' experiences before and after, similarly, involved individuals' experiences before and after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. Firstly, that was far from an exhaustive list of potential material benefits. Secondly, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion if not everyone who transfers does so in order to win, it is enough to demonstrate that people can use transfers in order to increase their chances of winning which they clearly can. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the psychic value of winning is being consistently undervalued here. Everyone just seems to focus on material benefits but that's not the only reason humans do things and/or get emotionally invested in things. So for instance many humans will pay money to watch other humans play sports games and they can get very invested in the outcomes of those games even if they have no actual material interest in the outcome at all and often take great pride in the outcome even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it. We call them "sports fanatics" or "fans" for short. Why do humans do this? What do they gain? > What is a "winning server". A server that wins their matchup. > What a "winning server" wins. The matchup. > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". The matchup. > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... No those questions are irrelevant to the current question posed by the OP. I consider transfers pay to win because I agree with the OP's definition of pay to win and paid transfers seem to me to fit within that definition. A=A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansau.7326 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > > It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... > > > > What is a "winning server". > > What a "winning server" wins. > > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... > > You win a better experience. You gain a group advantage therefore benefit individuals' experiences in that group, this come at the cost of other group's. To come to this conclusion, you need to have at least two actual comparison. Afterall, advantage without at least two entities to compare to is not logical. This therefore means you need to actually compare the involved servers' before and after, likewise the groups' experiences before and after. This is just the perfect explanation why you are unable to explain how gw2/transfers are p2w. "Better experience" is a subjective term that doesn't imply winning, an objective and tangible concept. p2w is a term used related with the exchange of money for tangible prizes/benefits unaccessible to those who don't spend money. Anything else is, as I said before, a vague interpretation of p2w meaning to find justifications for your delirious theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > > > It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... > > > > > > What is a "winning server". > > > What a "winning server" wins. > > > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > > > > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... > > > > You win a better experience. You gain a group advantage therefore benefit individuals' experiences in that group, this come at the cost of other group's. To come to this conclusion, you need to have at least two actual comparison. Afterall, advantage without at least two entities to compare to is not logical. This therefore means you need to actually compare the involved servers' before and after, likewise the groups' experiences before and after. > > This is just the perfect explanation why you are unable to explain how gw2/transfers are p2w. "Better experience" is a subjective term that doesn't imply winning, an objective and tangible concept. > p2w is a term used related with the exchange of money for tangible prizes/benefits unaccessible to those who don't spend money. > > Anything else is, as I said before, a vague interpretation of p2w meaning to find justifications for your delirious theories. You already clearly stated you only consider tangible and object assets as p2w. However, I define any forms of advantage via monetary means as p2w. Base on your definition, a lot of games will not be p2w. On my previous post, I already refute one of the user who used similiar definition like your's. For example, in the current mobile game market, there are a lot of games that allow users to get similar rewards via grind thus base on your definition is not p2w. However, the mobile community wouldn't agree with that. You are not on the norm. To you, these are acceptable p2w therefore you consider not as p2w, however, it is still p2w by nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansau.7326 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > > Firstly, that was far from an exhaustive list of potential material benefits. He already state there isn't an exhaustive list of material benefits. In fact, later in this post you aren't even able to show me detailed examples of prizes. So, the fact we cannot provide a tangible list of prizes/rewards you get when transferring prevales to the fact that there is nothing to win when transferring? Get your logic right. > @"Israel.7056" said: > Secondly, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion if not everyone who transfers does so in order to win, it is enough to demonstrate that people can use transfers in order to increase their chances of winning which they clearly can. No, they can't. There is nothing you can win in a winning server you cannot in a non winning server, because winning a matchup (what you consider to be a winning server) doesn't reward you tangibly in any way. > @"Israel.7056" said: > Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the psychic value of winning is being consistently undervalued here. Everyone just seems to focus on material benefits but that's not the only reason humans do things and/or get emotionally invested in things. > > So for instance many humans will pay money to watch other humans play sports games and they can get very invested in the outcomes of those games even if they have no actual material interest in the outcome at all and often take great pride in the outcome even though they had absolutely nothing to do with it. We call them "sports fanatics" or "fans" for short. Why do humans do this? What do they gain? Well, p2w wasn't a term invented to evaluate your emotions. It is a term used to describe factual advantages granted with real money. It is you who's using the term p2w wrongly, not the rest of us forgetting about a value that was never intended to be evaluated. > @"Israel.7056" said: > > What is a "winning server". > > A server that wins their matchup. Then, the majority of servers are winners. And transferring is not p2w because it contradicts one of its core characteristics of being rewarded with something unavailable without money drop. > @"Israel.7056" said: > > What a "winning server" wins. > > The matchup. Winning a matchup is indeed irrelevant. It provides no prize, it doesn't even provide anything different that what the other servers get after the matchup. Matchup itself is not a reward. > @"Israel.7056" said: > > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > The matchup. Meaningless hyperbole again. You don't get rewarded in any way by winning a matchup. > @"Israel.7056" said: > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... > > No those questions are irrelevant to the current question posed by the OP. > > I consider transfers pay to win because I agree with the OP's definition of pay to win and paid transfers seem to me to fit within that definition. A=A No, you are the wrong one here. 1. These questions are in fact related to the topic because they are targeted to find the advantages required to be p2w. 2. Your consideration of p2w is the wrong one. And the genuine definition of the term p2w will always prevail to the perception you have of it. Again if it's still needed. p2w is a term used in those games where real money can be exchanged for items or benefits that give a tangible advantage in combat, grinding, leveling or improve the ingame rewards over those players not spending money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > That's double standard, isn't it? What you clearly stated is you consider this p2w acceptable, not because it isn't p2w. It is because you consider it as acceptable, therefore you decide it is not a p2w. No. It depends on the condition. Read what I've written. If the main goal of the game is grinding for gear, then anything that speeds that one up is considered pay to win. If the game is focused on other materialistic things, such as fashion wars in gw2, it isn't considered pay to win. You reach max gear incredibly fast in gw2, so you enter a competitive scene in which almost all people are evenly equipped, except for the people that are fine with lower gear, because they want to use their gold otherwise. Therefore, no pay to win. To be honest, you reach max gear even faster than a pay to play game, such as WoW. The intangible aspect is only relevant to smaller scale battles, such as spvp. That is because your personal contribution affects the victory of your team far more than in WvW, therefore, you can think your a good player that can carry his team if you win easily etc. In WvW, you are just one of many that doesn't play 100% of the time in the 7 days MU (Spvp you have a 100% uptime because matches are short). Even if you have godlike skills, it doesn't affect the MU all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > That's double standard, isn't it? What you clearly stated is you consider this p2w acceptable, not because it isn't p2w. It is because you consider it as acceptable, therefore you decide it is not a p2w. > > No. It depends on the condition. Read what I've written. If the main goal of the game is grinding for gear, then anything that speeds that one up is considered pay to win. If the game is focused on other materialistic things, such as fashion wars in gw2, it isn't considered pay to win. You reach max gear incredibly fast in gw2, so you enter a competitive scene in which almost all people are evenly equipped, except for the people that are fine with lower gear, because they want to use their gold otherwise. Therefore, no pay to win. To be honest, you reach max gear even faster than a pay to play game, such as WoW. > > The intangible aspect is only relevant to smaller scale battles, such as spvp. That is because your personal contribution affects the victory of your team far more than in WvW, therefore, you can think your a good player that can carry his team if you win easily etc. In WvW, you are just one of many that doesn't play 100% of the time in the 7 days MU (Spvp you have a 100% uptime because matches are short). Even if you have godlike skills, it doesn't affect the MU all that much. That's what exactly is, double standard. You do not consider it p2w because of low gear gap, not because you can use monetary means to obtain the gear. To you, even if monetary is involved, as long it is acceptable, it isn't p2w. For me there certainly is acceptable or not acceptable p2w but it doesn't change how i see "advantage gain via monetary means". My definition comprise all regardless of acceptance. Acceptance is up to individual. Anyway, the main topic is about transfer. Not about low gear cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansau.7326 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > > > > It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... > > > > > > > > What is a "winning server". > > > > What a "winning server" wins. > > > > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > > > > > > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... > > > > > > You win a better experience. You gain a group advantage therefore benefit individuals' experiences in that group, this come at the cost of other group's. To come to this conclusion, you need to have at least two actual comparison. Afterall, advantage without at least two entities to compare to is not logical. This therefore means you need to actually compare the involved servers' before and after, likewise the groups' experiences before and after. > > > > This is just the perfect explanation why you are unable to explain how gw2/transfers are p2w. "Better experience" is a subjective term that doesn't imply winning, an objective and tangible concept. > > p2w is a term used related with the exchange of money for tangible prizes/benefits unaccessible to those who don't spend money. > > > > Anything else is, as I said before, a vague interpretation of p2w meaning to find justifications for your delirious theories. > > You already clearly stated you only consider tangible and object assets as p2w. However, I define any forms of advantage via monetary means as p2w. > Base on your definition, a lot of games will not be p2w. On my previous post, I already refute one of the user who used similiar definition like your's. For example, in the current mobile game market, there are a lot of games that allow users to get similar rewards via grind thus base on your definition is not p2w. However, the mobile community wouldn't agree with that. You are not on the norm. > > To you, these are acceptable p2w therefore you consider not as p2w, however, it is still p2w by nature. The problem with your definition is that is too vague, ambiguous. So much, it even impossible to achieve your goal to raise awareness as people will have a hard time to evaluate it. At the same time, p2w has been largely used to target despicable practices in the game business. Then, regarding mobile market example, time is also a tangible and evaluable thing, and the fact that you can have it, doesn't mean that you have it. Moreover, the norm of those mobile games is to hide those items in a excessive time consuming grind, well beyond the typical amount of time the majority of people will put to those games and forcing people to drop money to be competitive. So yes, paying real money to bypass the grinding required in mobile games is also considered as p2w. If you prefer to consider transfers as p2w based on an erratic interpretation of p2w concept, so be it. But that will not change the fact that transfers aren't p2w as how p2w is understood and used for the purposes of its meaning: To identify those games using practices that allow players to have a much easier path to win in the game, be the strongest contender and secure it by just spending money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > >The profits through transfering is nonexistance > > > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > > > >there is no real tier gated item that makes you stronger or anything of the sort in tier 1. > > > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Nowdays people transfer to get to learn a different community, to receive a different experience, to follow a certain commander that left the server, to leave a certain tier that they got sick of, to go to 'international server' from national ones, to get away from a toxic community, to play with people who prefer the same style(ppt, ppk or both; roaming/zerging) or they just went with the flow (guild transfer, mass transfer like we had in the past) etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Irrelevant. > > > > > > > > > > How can you call something p2w when considering all its potential benefits irrelevant? Then transfers are not p2w, but p2i: pay to irrelevancy. > > > > > It is called pay to win because you win something after paying... > > > > > > > > > > What is a "winning server". > > > > > What a "winning server" wins. > > > > > What do you win by transferring to a "winning server" that you don't in a "loser server". > > > > > > > > > > Unless you find meaningful answers to these questions, your hyperbole of defining transfers as p2w is nothing but an another implementation of "purity of purpose": We consider transfers p2w because they are... > > > > > > > > You win a better experience. You gain a group advantage therefore benefit individuals' experiences in that group, this come at the cost of other group's. To come to this conclusion, you need to have at least two actual comparison. Afterall, advantage without at least two entities to compare to is not logical. This therefore means you need to actually compare the involved servers' before and after, likewise the groups' experiences before and after. > > > > > > This is just the perfect explanation why you are unable to explain how gw2/transfers are p2w. "Better experience" is a subjective term that doesn't imply winning, an objective and tangible concept. > > > p2w is a term used related with the exchange of money for tangible prizes/benefits unaccessible to those who don't spend money. > > > > > > Anything else is, as I said before, a vague interpretation of p2w meaning to find justifications for your delirious theories. > > > > You already clearly stated you only consider tangible and object assets as p2w. However, I define any forms of advantage via monetary means as p2w. > > Base on your definition, a lot of games will not be p2w. On my previous post, I already refute one of the user who used similiar definition like your's. For example, in the current mobile game market, there are a lot of games that allow users to get similar rewards via grind thus base on your definition is not p2w. However, the mobile community wouldn't agree with that. You are not on the norm. > > > > To you, these are acceptable p2w therefore you consider not as p2w, however, it is still p2w by nature. > > The problem with your definition is that is too vague, ambiguous. So much, it even impossible to achieve your goal to raise awareness as people will have a hard time to evaluate it. At the same time, p2w has been largely used to target despicable practices in the game business. > Then, regarding mobile market example, time is also a tangible and evaluable thing, and the fact that you can have it, doesn't mean that you have it. Moreover, the norm of those mobile games is to hide those items in a excessive time consuming grind, well beyond the typical amount of time the majority of people will put to those games and forcing people to drop money to be competitive. So yes, paying real money to bypass the grinding required in mobile games is also considered as p2w. > > If you prefer to consider transfers as p2w based on an erratic interpretation of p2w concept, so be it. But that will not change the fact that transfers aren't p2w as how p2w is understood and used for the purposes of its meaning: To identify those games using practices that allow players to have a much easier path to win in the game, be the strongest contender and secure it by just spending money. Huh, the definition isn't vague though? As I have said, you have narrow it down to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I don't. My definition is as it is, as long monetary is involved, any forms of advantage gain through that is p2w. Which part of it is vague? You can get to a better servers therefore means able to destroy your older servers, if they ever in same matchup. You already got an advantage there. What you said is what really vague because you end up adding more conditions to your p2w. You don't have a concrete definition for your own term of p2w. Like I wrote in previous post, a definition that cannot be apply to all is incorrect definition. Why not you work on your definition first before we continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now