Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > 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. LOL. And yet that's exactly the in game situation transfers have repeatedly created without fail for years and probably one of the main reasons people stop playing the game mode in general...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 @"Israel.7056" “you're committing the same goalposts fallacy as Swagger.” Meanwhile... “using it the way I do.” I’m assuming you see the hypocrisy here? Or do you not recognize that changing the term “pay to win” to your own definition is in fact “goalpost fallacy”? You couldn’t even articulate what you “win”. You’ve basically insulted ANet. You can’t even come up with any rational “burden of proof” to present to players or devs to back up your new definition of “pay to win”... You want to make some claim then back it up, because that’s the approprite and mature way to preset your argument. Running and deflection and redifining clearly show you have nothing except “words”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk.5460 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 No. /15 Charr 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: > > > > > @"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? I'm not adding conditions to the p2w definition, I'm describing it's limitations. Does the benefit bought by money allow you to kill the enemy faster or easier? It is p2w. Does the benefit bought by money allow you to bypass content? It's p2w. Does the benefit bought by money grant more/better rewards than the ones you would get without that benefit? Then it's p2w. Yours is indeed vague, because by your definition, anything bought by money in this game can be considered p2w. Gear/food/sigils is p2w, waypoints are p2w, traits/skills are p2w (as they can be unlocked by buying hero points). That's what I was talking about being a vague and undefined definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Swagger.1459" said: > @"Israel.7056" > > “you're committing the same goalposts fallacy as Swagger.” > > Meanwhile... > > “using it the way I do.” > > I’m assuming you see the hypocrisy here? Or do you not recognize that changing the term “pay to win” to your own definition is in fact “goalpost fallacy”? > > You couldn’t even articulate what you “win”. You’ve basically insulted ANet. You can’t even come up with any rational “burden of proof” to present to players or devs to back up your new definition of “pay to win”... You want to make some claim then back it up, because that’s the approprite and mature way to preset your argument. Running and deflection and redifining clearly show you have nothing except “words”. I haven't changed anything I'm using the term in a way that's consistent with the ops usage and which you conceded to in your response. If you wanted to argue the definition you should've done that first before trying to move the goalposts of the discussion. 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: > > > > > > @"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? > > I'm not adding conditions to the p2w definition, I'm describing it's limitations. > Does the benefit bought by money allow you to kill the enemy faster or easier? It is p2w. > Does the benefit bought by money allow you to bypass content? It's p2w. > Does the benefit bought by money grant more/better rewards than the ones you would get without that benefit? Then it's p2w. > > Yours is indeed vague, because by your definition, anything bought by money in this game can be considered p2w. Gear/food/sigils is p2w, waypoints are p2w, traits/skills are p2w (as they can be unlocked by buying hero points). That's what I was talking about being a vague and undefined definition. Lol. Whatever you say. And to the latter part, it is. As long you can use monetary means to obtain an advantage, it is p2w. You can purchase gems through monetary means which use to get items shop boost and likewise golds which use to get gears, food etc. Compare to the person who start at the same time as you, play as much as you, he who has to grind and you who use money to obtain. You reach the best gears faster than he does, you gain an advantage over him. It is quite simple. It isn't vague you see, you think is vague because you don't consider it as p2w. Unlike you, I do acknowledge all of those as p2w but whether or not I accept them is not the subject of the topic. 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: > > 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. > > LOL. And yet that's exactly the in game situation transfers have repeatedly created without fail for years and probably one of the main reasons people stop playing the game mode in general...... If you really believe that transfers are the main reason of people stop playing wvw, and not the stagnation and boredomness created by the inattention of anet to wvw and their wrong decisions, or the cringy profession unbalance ruling both smale and big scale fights since ever, there is little left to say. In fact, it's quite funny your comment. If people really hated transfers, people wouldn't transfer at all no? I've learn't masochism isn't a natural behaviour of the human being. Or at least they would transfer to lesser stacked servers to avoid the bangwagonery or work it out if they really cared about winning in a meaningful way... Get it right, people either like transfers or the don't care about it. The tiny minority of you who hate them isn't representative of neither the community nor the people that left for other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KryTiKaL.3125 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"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? I think it has well been established that just getting onto a "better server" doesn't necessarily make you win. You gave an anecdotal example of apparently seeing a guild transfer and then doing exactly that, but its highly likely that they would be the exception that would prove the rule so to speak. Also I'm wondering if its even true because again that is an entirely anecdotal example you've given, and as such is difficult to prove without evidence such as a video or a comment from an individual(s) involved with that guild, or any guild really that has had that experience. Gaining a better experience doesn't constitute as gaining an advantage, it is also extremely subjective. You say your definition isn't vague and then say the other definition isn't concrete as to what p2w is. You're looking at it as "pay for convenience" and "Pay to win" are the same phrase when in fact they are two different ones even if they exist in similar circumstances. That would be like saying the words even and even are the same word when its actually a homonym, or lie or lie, or fair, fair and fair. Or maybe in this circumstance we could talk about homophones, two and too, pair and pear. Just because something may look the same or sound the same doesn't mean it is the same. This is why context matters in these circumstances, even if you try to say "the nature of it is still the same". The nature of somethings effect on an environment or circumstance or outcome still has to do with the **context** in which it is existing or in which it happened. For instance, you give a friend just a joking shove. Its whatever, not a big deal you're just joking around. However if you shove a stranger or you're angry and shove someone you're arguing with then it could turn into a fight, the argument could get more heated, tensions could rise. A shove is still a shove, the nature of a shove is always going to be literally *pushing* someone, abruptly or roughly. What can change what the shove *is* matters on the context in which it exists in. You're trying to quantify something as if all of the variables in literally every scenario are exactly the same when that is, as has been shown on multiple occasions, not the case. Thats rather narrow minded, honestly, trying to generalize all under one umbrella of a definition when the reality is that they don't all just fit under there because of the varying and different circumstances you can apply to each. You have even stated yourself that the "degrees" of "pay to win" are different, of what is and isn't "acceptable" pay to win, so then wouldn't that imply that the context is different and you're agreeing to that so then why would it all fall into a single category? Hot isn't still hot if the temperature drops low enough. It turns into cold. So then if you're saying that there are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" degrees of pay to win then you're saying yourself that one is pay to win and the other isn't. > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > 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. > The issue we are facing here is that you're stretching what one of these phrases means to just blanket over all examples rather than considering the context they exist in yet you're acknowledging that there are different circumstances to account for when looking at these things. The start of this thread seemed to even begin with you seemingly questioning the validity of what you thought, just looking at the title and the circumstances you explained leading to this, trying to gain other perspectives or to try to affirm what you believed or maybe you didn't quite know why you thought it and still don't which is maybe why you are contradicting yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Ansau.7326" said: > > > 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. > > > > LOL. And yet that's exactly the in game situation transfers have repeatedly created without fail for years and probably one of the main reasons people stop playing the game mode in general...... > > If you really believe that transfers are the main reason of people stop playing wvw, and not the stagnation and boredomness created by the inattention of anet to wvw and their wrong decisions, or the cringy profession unbalance ruling both smale and big scale fights since ever, there is little left to say. > > In fact, it's quite funny your comment. If people really hated transfers, people wouldn't transfer at all no? I've learn't masochism isn't a natural behaviour of the human being. Or at least they would transfer to lesser stacked servers to avoid the bangwagonery or work it out if they really cared about winning in a meaningful way... > Get it right, people either like transfers or the don't care about it. The tiny minority of you who hate them isn't representative of neither the community nor the people that left for other reasons. I think population balance and coverage issues have been a major problem for wvw since launch and that transfers both free and paid have played an enormous role in that problem because they've made server stacking possible and server stacking has driven a lot of people away from the game due to horribly lopsided matches or put them in a position where they felt they had to transfer around a lot and stack to be able to compete which has also driven a lot of people away. Certainly not the only problem the game mode has faced but one of the major ones. It's a false assertion to suggest that humans can only either like or hate or not care about something. Surely we have all experienced ambivalence over something before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > @"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? > > I think it has well been established that just getting onto a "better server" doesn't necessarily make you win. You gave an anecdotal example of apparently seeing a guild transfer and then doing exactly that, but its highly likely that they would be the exception that would prove the rule so to speak. Also I'm wondering if its even true because again that is an entirely anecdotal example you've given, and as such is difficult to prove without evidence such as a video or a comment from an individual(s) involved with that guild, or any guild really that has had that experience. Gaining a better experience doesn't constitute as gaining an advantage, it is also extremely subjective. > > You say your definition isn't vague and then say the other definition isn't concrete as to what p2w is. You're looking at it as "pay for convenience" and "Pay to win" are the same phrase when in fact they are two different ones even if they exist in similar circumstances. That would be like saying the words even and even are the same word when its actually a homonym, or lie or lie, or fair, fair and fair. Or maybe in this circumstance we could talk about homophones, two and too, pair and pear. Just because something may look the same or sound the same doesn't mean it is the same. This is why context matters in these circumstances, even if you try to say "the nature of it is still the same". The nature of somethings effect on an environment or circumstance or outcome still has to do with the **context** in which it is existing or in which it happened. For instance, you give a friend just a joking shove. Its whatever, not a big deal you're just joking around. However if you shove a stranger or you're angry and shove someone you're arguing with then it could turn into a fight, the argument could get more heated, tensions could rise. A shove is still a shove, the nature of a shove is always going to be literally *pushing* someone, abruptly or roughly. What can change what the shove *is* matters on the context in which it exists in. > > You're trying to quantify something as if all of the variables in literally every scenario are exactly the same when that is, as has been shown on multiple occasions, not the case. Thats rather narrow minded, honestly, trying to generalize all under one umbrella of a definition when the reality is that they don't all just fit under there because of the varying and different circumstances you can apply to each. You have even stated yourself that the "degrees" of "pay to win" are different, of what is and isn't "acceptable" pay to win, so then wouldn't that imply that the context is different and you're agreeing to that so then why would it all fall into a single category? Hot isn't still hot if the temperature drops low enough. It turns into cold. So then if you're saying that there are "acceptable" or "unacceptable" degrees of pay to win then you're saying yourself that one is pay to win and the other isn't. Oh? I can't really name servers here or it will get locked as matchup discussion but we all know there are servers that raised up or crashed down all because of transfers. You call it anecdotal when it is already historically proven that transfers can cause a shift of power thus making losers become winners though not all the time, but still better than their old servers. You asked for evidences when there are actual ongoing events for years. If shift of power is does not change who is strong and weak, then what it is? "Pay for convenience" and "Pay to win". Both constitute advantage in one form or another. It is just a different degree of advantage. It doesn't change the fact it is a advantage. "Pay for convenience" is much of a new marketing terms, something hard to argue about, something subjective, most importantly lack the negative connotation p2w has. However, if one look deeper, it is of the same coin. For example, if you have an additional inventory bag slot which I am sure that is considered as convenience thingy. You then compare to a player who do not have the same amount of bag slots. That player will need to run 10 times to clear his bags while the one with additional bag slots only need to run 9 times. The latter got an advantage. P2w is a term therefore a lesser p2w game doesn't make it not p2w. You are trying to rewrite personal acceptable p2w as non-p2w. Temperature too but did I write hot and cold here? What I am asking is is it a temperature or not a temperature. :) I am not asking for a spectrum, if it is acceptable or not acceptable, what is acceptable and not acceptable. > @"KryTiKaL.3125" said: > > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > > > 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. > > > > The issue we are facing here is that you're stretching what one of these phrases means to just blanket over all examples rather than considering the context they exist in yet you're acknowledging that there are different circumstances to account for when looking at these things. The start of this thread seemed to even begin with you seemingly questioning the validity of what you thought, just looking at the title and the circumstances you explained leading to this, trying to gain other perspectives or to try to affirm what you believed or maybe you didn't quite know why you thought it and still don't which is maybe why you are contradicting yourself. Nice try but I made this thread to see how many actually see it as p2w and how many don't and why they don't. Unfortunately, the logic given are poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > > @"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. Pay to win has never been about server transfers ever. It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. In a one on one encounter you're at no disadvantage being on a worse server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirnale.5914 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 @"SkyShroud.2865" said: "....as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w". You know, this definition is incredibly flawed. By that definition, every single MMORPG would be pay to win. For a pay to play game, you pay to get full access to the game including higher level cap and gear. If you don't, you are stuck at demo/low lvl or even a limited play time. Pay to win like you said. WoW, FF14 etc all pay to win. All buy to play games have a cash shop, therefore all buy to play games are pay to win since you get an advantage with your wallet. Even a single item slot more is considered pay to win this case. All free to play game also have cash shop. Therefore, all pay to win. Even buying offline game can be considered pay to win, since you have access to the game and get ahead of others in the progress as compared to someone who didn't bought the game. Pay to win. Then, why do we need to classify MMORPGs as pay to win or not if all of them are pay to win anyways? What is the purpose of this term? Why do you need to ask this question about if transfer are pay to win when, by your definition, it is pay to win anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > "....as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w". > > You know, this definition is incredibly flawed. By that definition, every single MMORPG would be pay to win. For a pay to play game, you pay to get full access to the game including higher level cap and gear. If you don't, you are stuck at demo/low lvl or even a limited play time. Pay to win like you said. WoW, FF14 etc all pay to win. All buy to play games have a cash shop, therefore all buy to play games are pay to win since you get an advantage with your wallet. Even a single item slot more is considered pay to win this case. All free to play game also have cash shop. Therefore, all pay to win. Even buying offline game can be considered pay to win, since you have access to the game and get ahead of others in the progress as compared to someone who didn't bought the game. Pay to win. > Then, why do we need to classify MMORPGs as pay to win or not if all of them are pay to win anyways? What is the purpose of this term? Why do you need to ask this question about if transfer are pay to win when, by your definition, it is pay to win anyways? This is what I mean. The history of pay to win has always been buying power in the cash shop. And usually we referred to having to keep spending money to stay current, on a regular basis. It never included expansions either, just cash shop. That's always been my understanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" > > Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. > > Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. Does it only count if the "personal power" translates into a competitive advantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Substance E.4852 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > "....as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w". > > You know, this definition is incredibly flawed. By that definition, every single MMORPG would be pay to win. For a pay to play game, you pay to get full access to the game including higher level cap and gear. If you don't, you are stuck at demo/low lvl or even a limited play time. Pay to win like you said. WoW, FF14 etc all pay to win. All buy to play games have a cash shop, therefore all buy to play games are pay to win since you get an advantage with your wallet. Even a single item slot more is considered pay to win this case. All free to play game also have cash shop. Therefore, all pay to win. Even buying offline game can be considered pay to win, since you have access to the game and get ahead of others in the progress as compared to someone who didn't bought the game. Pay to win. > Then, why do we need to classify MMORPGs as pay to win or not if all of them are pay to win anyways? What is the purpose of this term? Why do you need to ask this question about if transfer are pay to win when, by your definition, it is pay to win anyways? "Paying for the game is pay to win" This is why internet debates turn into piles of dog doo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > > > > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > > > > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" > > > > Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. > > > > Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. > > Does it only count if the "personal power" translates into a competitive advantage? Well, no, if your character is by itself more powerful due to a cash shop purchase, I'd call that pay to win. If your stats are higher. If you have extra skills. I mean in Guild Wars 1, you had to grind out your skills in game, but you could buy skill unlock packs in the cash shop that unlocked all those skills on your heroes. That made you more powerful in game. But no one ran around calling it pay to win. At least no one I ever spoke to. There wasn't a big conversation about how Guild Wars 1 was pay to win, even though it was selling power in the cash shop because you could unlock the skills you need in game relatively easily (if over time). You were basically paying to save time. Here, you're talking about going to a server that's winning, which is a very different thing to your character being more powerful. For years, I've heard the complaint from WvW players that winning is essentially meaningless and means nothing. Not sure how that dovetails with server transfers supposedly being pay to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > > > > > > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > > > > > > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" > > > > > > Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. > > > > > > Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. > > > > Does it only count if the "personal power" translates into a competitive advantage? > > Well, no, if your character is by itself more powerful due to a cash shop purchase, I'd call that pay to win. If your stats are higher. If you have extra skills. I mean in Guild Wars 1, you had to grind out your skills in game, but you could buy skill unlock packs in the cash shop that unlocked all those skills on your heroes. That made you more powerful in game. But no one ran around calling it pay to win. At least no one I ever spoke to. There wasn't a big conversation about how Guild Wars 1 was pay to win, even though it was selling power in the cash shop because you could unlock the skills you need in game relatively easily (if over time). You were basically paying to save time. > > Here, you're talking about going to a server that's winning, which is a very different thing to your character being more powerful. For years, I've heard the complaint from WvW players that winning is essentially meaningless and means nothing. Not sure how that dovetails with server transfers supposedly being pay to win. I think many people would call a cash shop purchase pay to win if it saved a lot of time compared to farming it normally. Like if it could save hundreds or thousands of hours of time. Wouldn't you agree? What about a cash shop purchase that conferred a competitive advantage without enhancing "personal power?" I can think of a few examples that I think even you might consider to be pay to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > > > > > > > > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > > > > > > > > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" > > > > > > > > Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. > > > > > > > > Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. > > > > > > Does it only count if the "personal power" translates into a competitive advantage? > > > > Well, no, if your character is by itself more powerful due to a cash shop purchase, I'd call that pay to win. If your stats are higher. If you have extra skills. I mean in Guild Wars 1, you had to grind out your skills in game, but you could buy skill unlock packs in the cash shop that unlocked all those skills on your heroes. That made you more powerful in game. But no one ran around calling it pay to win. At least no one I ever spoke to. There wasn't a big conversation about how Guild Wars 1 was pay to win, even though it was selling power in the cash shop because you could unlock the skills you need in game relatively easily (if over time). You were basically paying to save time. > > > > Here, you're talking about going to a server that's winning, which is a very different thing to your character being more powerful. For years, I've heard the complaint from WvW players that winning is essentially meaningless and means nothing. Not sure how that dovetails with server transfers supposedly being pay to win. > > I think many people would call a cash shop purchase pay to win if it saved a lot of time compared to farming it normally. Like if it could save hundreds or thousands of hours of time. Wouldn't you agree? > > What about a cash shop purchase that conferred a competitive advantage without enhancing "personal power?" I can think of a few examples that I think even you might consider to be pay to win. Many people can call it what they want. But saving time is very very different from buying power directly. When this game launched, Anet said directly PvP was meant to be competitive and on an even footing. WvW was never supposed to be directly 1v1 competitive. That's not how it was designed. I spent a very long time in TC, which was in Tier 1, against Blackgate and Jade Quarry and we NEVER could field the numbers to fight those guys. Not ever. But not once, ever, did that affect my ability to play WvW as an individual. When I run 1v1 into people, I went about 50/50. You could argue you level faster by being on a stronger server, but how much faster? How much difference? How amorphous is this perceived difference? How much time do you save? Even if you saved the gold to buy the transfers, which anyone could do, how much time would you have saved/spent? I don't play a ton of WvW and I'm sitting at around rank 700. It's not that hard to get up there. I dont' feel more hamstrung than a new guy who buys the game today and ends up on a busier server than mine. We're splitting hairs here. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between direct personal power, winning a match because you can buy more potions than someone else, or maybe getting to max level a bit faster because you can buy an XP buff. People weren't calling XP buffs pay to win, so why is taking a bit longer to max out your WvW masteries p2w? People keep shifting the bar. They move it further and further away from the original definition. Which waters down what it was intended to mean and therefore makes the phrase more and more meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israel.7056 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > Many people can call it what they want. I personally think you're being far too flippant about this. If your definition doesn't capture all the ways in which a phrase is used or in this case the principle characteristics of what is meant by a phrase it's not a very good definition. I believe the OP's definition is far more all encompassing because it captures the principle characteristics of what people mean when they call a game "pay to win." >But saving time is very very different from buying power directly. Yes it is and yet it's something that many people (including many of the 'nays' in this thread) seem to see as being part of "pay to win" particularly when the amount of time saved becomes significant in human terms. Saves five minutes? Probably not. Saves thousands of hours? Almost certainly. Everyone I tell that Aion story to agrees with me that it was pay to win and yet all it really amounted to was the other guy saving himself years of time grinding and playing the rng lottery. I think this is because humans recognize that for humans individual time is a form of finite resource and because humans understand time preferences when it comes to obtaining things. What I'm trying to get you to see is that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't properly capture all the ways in which the term is used. "Pay to win" doesn't always involve a direct increase in "personal power" nor does it even necessarily involve a cash shop purchase. >When this game launched, Anet said directly PvP was meant to be competitive and on an even footing. WvW was never supposed to be directly 1v1 competitive. That's not how it was designed. Yeah but they didn't detail exactly how uncompetitive it was going to be did they? They left that part vague. And they have wavered on this quite a bit with their development strategies and messaging over the years wouldn't you say? Imagine if they would've originally marketed WvW as "a large scale 24/7 battle where north american players will spend hours fighting hard to get things upgraded only to lose them every single night to players from around the globe with little to no interference due to server stacking and mass transfers, so you better be on the stacked servers if you want to win!!!" Extremely honest but doesn't sound so great. > I spent a very long time in TC, which was in Tier 1, against Blackgate and Jade Quarry and we NEVER could field the numbers to fight those guys. Not ever. But not once, ever, did that affect my ability to play WvW as an individual. When I run 1v1 into people, I went about 50/50. You could argue you level faster by being on a stronger server, but how much faster? How much difference? How amorphous is this perceived difference? How much time do you save? Again I think your focus is simply too narrow and individualistic. What those two servers did was to shift the playing field with mass transfers and bought coverage. It's like tilting the proverbial board instead of biasing the results in favor of one person you bias the results in favor of an entire team. You may not have personally cared about winning but I can guarantee you there were many people on my server who did and we beat you guys I think almost every single week for years because of what we did early on with buying coverage. Ultimately we tilted the board so hard in our favor during seasons that it completely compromised the integrity of the game in many people's eyes which is one of the main reasons why my old server in particular is still so widely hated. All I'm trying to get you to see is that there's more ways to bias the results of a game than just "personal power." > Even if you saved the gold to buy the transfers, which anyone could do, how much time would you have saved/spent? I have no idea I imagine that would vary depending on the individual. But that's not really the point here. The point is that saving time can be considered pay to win under the right circumstances. I'm trying to show you that your definition doesn't encompass all the ways in which games can be manipulated and/or biased. > I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between direct personal power, winning a match because you can buy more potions than someone else, or maybe getting to max level a bit faster because you can buy an XP buff. People weren't calling XP buffs pay to win, so why is taking a bit longer to max out your WvW masteries p2w? People keep shifting the bar. They move it further and further away from the original definition. I absolutely see a difference between those two things but I also think it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges due to the structure of GW2 where there's a level cap and it's easy to get to. So imagine if GW2 had no hard level cap just like a soft cap and imagine if levels past soft cap offered progressively greater stats so that some numbers of levels above soft cap made you a god to everyone below you and then imagine if players could buy xp buffs in the cash shop that would significantly reduce the time it took to level once they got past soft cap but they cost 40 dollars a piece and they could expire so they had to be purchased at some regular interval. Wouldn't you consider that a pay to win scenario? > Which waters down what it was intended to mean and therefore makes the phrase more and more meaningless. Yeah you've said this before and perhaps there's some truth to it. But in my view the way words are used over time can change and as different developers find different methods to sell competitive advantages for money so too must the term be allowed to expand to account for all those methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vayne.8563 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Israel.7056" said: > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > Many people can call it what they want. > > I personally think you're being far too flippant about this. If your definition doesn't capture all the ways in which a phrase is used or in this case the principle characteristics of what is meant by a phrase it's not a very good definition. > > I believe the OP's definition is far more all encompassing because it captures the principle characteristics of what people mean when they call a game "pay to win." > > >But saving time is very very different from buying power directly. > > Yes it is and yet it's something that many people (including many of the 'nays' in this thread) seem to see as being part of "pay to win" particularly when the amount of time saved becomes significant in human terms. Saves five minutes? Probably not. Saves thousands of hours? Almost certainly. Everyone I tell that Aion story to agrees with me that it was pay to win and yet all it really amounted to was the other guy saving himself years of time grinding and playing the rng lottery. I think this is because humans recognize that for humans individual time is a form of finite resource and because humans understand time preferences when it comes to obtaining things. > > What I'm trying to get you to see is that your definition is inadequate because it doesn't properly capture all the ways in which the term is used. "Pay to win" doesn't always involve a direct increase in "personal power" nor does it even necessarily involve a cash shop purchase. > > >When this game launched, Anet said directly PvP was meant to be competitive and on an even footing. WvW was never supposed to be directly 1v1 competitive. That's not how it was designed. > > Yeah but they didn't detail exactly how uncompetitive it was going to be did they? They left that part vague. And they have wavered on this quite a bit with their development strategies and messaging over the years wouldn't you say? > > Imagine if they would've originally marketed WvW as "a large scale 24/7 battle where north american players will spend hours fighting hard to get things upgraded only to lose them every single night to players from around the globe with little to no interference due to server stacking and mass transfers, so you better be on the stacked servers if you want to win!!!" > > Extremely honest but doesn't sound so great. > > > I spent a very long time in TC, which was in Tier 1, against Blackgate and Jade Quarry and we NEVER could field the numbers to fight those guys. Not ever. But not once, ever, did that affect my ability to play WvW as an individual. When I run 1v1 into people, I went about 50/50. You could argue you level faster by being on a stronger server, but how much faster? How much difference? How amorphous is this perceived difference? How much time do you save? > > Again I think your focus is simply too narrow and individualistic. What those two servers did was to shift the playing field with mass transfers and bought coverage. It's like tilting the proverbial board instead of biasing the results in favor of one person you bias the results in favor of an entire team. You may not have personally cared about winning but I can guarantee you there were many people on my server who did and we beat you guys I think almost every single week for years because of what we did early on with buying coverage. Ultimately we tilted the board so hard in our favor during seasons that it completely compromised the integrity of the game in many people's eyes which is one of the main reasons why my old server in particular is still so widely hated. All I'm trying to get you to see is that there's more ways to bias the results of a game than just "personal power." > > > Even if you saved the gold to buy the transfers, which anyone could do, how much time would you have saved/spent? > > I have no idea I imagine that would vary depending on the individual. But that's not really the point here. The point is that saving time can be considered pay to win under the right circumstances. I'm trying to show you that your definition doesn't encompass all the ways in which games can be manipulated and/or biased. > > > I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between direct personal power, winning a match because you can buy more potions than someone else, or maybe getting to max level a bit faster because you can buy an XP buff. People weren't calling XP buffs pay to win, so why is taking a bit longer to max out your WvW masteries p2w? People keep shifting the bar. They move it further and further away from the original definition. > > I absolutely see a difference between those two things but I also think it's a bit like comparing apples and oranges due to the structure of GW2 where there's a level cap and it's easy to get to. > > So imagine if GW2 had no hard level cap just like a soft cap and imagine if levels past soft cap offered progressively greater stats so that some numbers of levels above soft cap made you a god to everyone below you and then imagine if players could buy xp buffs in the cash shop that would significantly reduce the time it took to level once they got past soft cap but they cost 40 dollars a piece and they could expire so they had to be purchased at some regular interval. Wouldn't you consider that a pay to win scenario? > > > Which waters down what it was intended to mean and therefore makes the phrase more and more meaningless. > > Yeah you've said this before and perhaps there's some truth to it. But in my view the way words are used over time can change and as different developers find different methods to sell competitive advantages for money so too must the term be allowed to expand to account for all those methods. > > If you're going to take the word and repurpose it, what word can be used to mean what it originally meant. Originally the term was meant to differentitate legit games from not legit games. Games that sold power directly that didn't really allow people to get that same sort of power just by playing in anything resembling reasonable amount of time. You need a new word for what you're saying because as the defintion "evolves" the word loses it's original function with nothing to replace it. Guild Wars 2 is no Maple Story. It's not a PWI game. It's not selling power in the cash shop. Could you argue that technically you can get an advantage with an experience buff? Sure you can. That's absolutely an advantage. But it's a convenience advantage. It gets you somewhere a bit faster. That's the matter of degree. Calling a game that has such convenience items pay to win means the games that are "really" pay to win can now get away with it. By the definitions some people are attempting you use, I could make an argument for every single MMO on the market being pay to win. I could go into any MMO, change the definition and start labeling. But we all know that ESO and WOW and FF XIV are legit MMOs. I believe most of us know that Guild Wars 2 is a legit MMO. It's not pay to win in the way we used to say games were paid to win. And once you make that change in definition, what do you call the games that force you to pay to play? How are you going to differentiate them from the legit games? Sure language evolves. I used to edit for a living. But that doesn't change the fact that the evolution of language isn't always helpful to communication in general, and terms like pay to win were created to serve a specific purpose. You might as well give up using the term altogether if you're going to move the bar every single time you have to pay money to a game for any reason. We have people that claim that buying expansions in a buy to play game is pay to win. Where does it end? How far do you push the bar? What value is left to the term once you push that bar. Create another word, if you want, or complain about the situation without using a term that has other meanings that completely invalidates the argument for at least a percentage of the populous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Kirnale.5914" said: > @"SkyShroud.2865" said: > "....as long as you can obtain any forms of advantage over other players through monetary means, it is p2w". > > You know, this definition is incredibly flawed. By that definition, every single MMORPG would be pay to win. For a pay to play game, you pay to get full access to the game including higher level cap and gear. If you don't, you are stuck at demo/low lvl or even a limited play time. Pay to win like you said. WoW, FF14 etc all pay to win. All buy to play games have a cash shop, therefore all buy to play games are pay to win since you get an advantage with your wallet. Even a single item slot more is considered pay to win this case. All free to play game also have cash shop. Therefore, all pay to win. Even buying offline game can be considered pay to win, since you have access to the game and get ahead of others in the progress as compared to someone who didn't bought the game. Pay to win. > Then, why do we need to classify MMORPGs as pay to win or not if all of them are pay to win anyways? What is the purpose of this term? Why do you need to ask this question about if transfer are pay to win when, by your definition, it is pay to win anyways? It seems that you ignoring a lot of my post and narrowing to your own personal selective pick. Subscription games are subscription games, they never had f2p features at the beginning, everyone has to pay to access. Everyone still equal at this point. The definition is really clear as shown " any forms of advantage **over** other players". You seems to very fixated on certain part of the definition instead of the definition as a whole. If everyone has to pay to access, does anyone has any advantage **over** other players? No. You are simply fixated on "monetary" and "advantage", you don't read the definition as a whole. Yes, every single item slot more is considered pay to win. Even a insignificantly advantage is a advantage. Every cash shop is p2w is untruth, not all cash shop consist of things that give you an advantage. Cosmetic products are not advantage. Again, you putting words into my mouth. The problem with many of you is that you don't recognize the p2w aspect, even how insignificant it is. That itself is a very frightening acceptance to p2w. Recognizing it as p2w and accepting them is very different from recognizing it as not p2w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyShroud.2865 Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > @"Israel.7056" said: > > > > > > > @"Vayne.8563" said: > > > > > > > It's been about personal power sold in the cash shop. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok so what precisely constitutes "personal power." Is it purely statistical like adding stats or can it also be more subtle things like for instance access to special weapon sets or skill lines that are very powerful? > > > > > > > > > > > > I remember you said in the other thread that you considered cash shop potions to have been a form of pay to win in another game you played even though presumably they were just healing potions because you said that whoever had the most potions would usually win the fight, right? So those weren't statistical bonuses but rather special items. Would those have still counted as "personal power?" > > > > > > > > > > Healing is personal power. If I meet someone 1v1 and I can heal more than he does, I win. In that game the person who had more potions won every time, because you could spam them. That's pay to win. > > > > > > > > > > Saying you can transfer to a winning server has nothing to do with you winning individual fights. It's not making you personally more powerful. It's not something you have to keep buying in the cash shop in order to stay current. > > > > > > > > Does it only count if the "personal power" translates into a competitive advantage? > > > > > > Well, no, if your character is by itself more powerful due to a cash shop purchase, I'd call that pay to win. If your stats are higher. If you have extra skills. I mean in Guild Wars 1, you had to grind out your skills in game, but you could buy skill unlock packs in the cash shop that unlocked all those skills on your heroes. That made you more powerful in game. But no one ran around calling it pay to win. At least no one I ever spoke to. There wasn't a big conversation about how Guild Wars 1 was pay to win, even though it was selling power in the cash shop because you could unlock the skills you need in game relatively easily (if over time). You were basically paying to save time. > > > > > > Here, you're talking about going to a server that's winning, which is a very different thing to your character being more powerful. For years, I've heard the complaint from WvW players that winning is essentially meaningless and means nothing. Not sure how that dovetails with server transfers supposedly being pay to win. > > > > I think many people would call a cash shop purchase pay to win if it saved a lot of time compared to farming it normally. Like if it could save hundreds or thousands of hours of time. Wouldn't you agree? > > > > What about a cash shop purchase that conferred a competitive advantage without enhancing "personal power?" I can think of a few examples that I think even you might consider to be pay to win. > > Many people can call it what they want. But saving time is very very different from buying power directly. When this game launched, Anet said directly PvP was meant to be competitive and on an even footing. WvW was never supposed to be directly 1v1 competitive. That's not how it was designed. > > I spent a very long time in TC, which was in Tier 1, against Blackgate and Jade Quarry and we NEVER could field the numbers to fight those guys. Not ever. But not once, ever, did that affect my ability to play WvW as an individual. When I run 1v1 into people, I went about 50/50. You could argue you level faster by being on a stronger server, but how much faster? How much difference? How amorphous is this perceived difference? How much time do you save? > > Even if you saved the gold to buy the transfers, which anyone could do, how much time would you have saved/spent? > > I don't play a ton of WvW and I'm sitting at around rank 700. It's not that hard to get up there. I dont' feel more hamstrung than a new guy who buys the game today and ends up on a busier server than mine. We're splitting hairs here. > > I'm not sure how you can't see the difference between direct personal power, winning a match because you can buy more potions than someone else, or maybe getting to max level a bit faster because you can buy an XP buff. People weren't calling XP buffs pay to win, so why is taking a bit longer to max out your WvW masteries p2w? People keep shifting the bar. They move it further and further away from the original definition. > > Which waters down what it was intended to mean and therefore makes the phrase more and more meaningless. That is false. Saving time is indirectly buying power. Otherwise, why would people in time-based RTS genre mmo called "speed up" boost as p2w? Why would f2p exp boost be considered p2w? By saying time, he already gain advantage over you, literally. You who have to spend 20 hours to reach rank C, he reach there within seconds through monetary means. By the time you finally reach rank C after spending 20 hours. He already reached rank B with that 20 hours. There is undeniable advantage. This is a truth to any mmo, by saving time, you are ahead. Like I have said numerous time to others, you only consider it not p2w because of the insignificant advantage but not because of what it is. But, if you are put into the environment where such advantage become significant, you only then recognize it as p2w but at that point, you already fall into a double standard logic. I am not even talking about more or less p2w here, the very fact that you don't even recognize it as p2w is a problem by itself. What people really did in justifying p2w in time saving is claiming that you who don't have time to play can use via monetary means to catch up. However, they never ever mentioned about the people who do have the time to play while still spending because they don't want you to know these people exist, because knowing their existence means that kind of justification break apart immediately. In transfer case, by saving time, you possibility get to do these 1. Avoid higher transfer cost since you are transferring ahead of others 2. First mover advantage, be the first to decide set certain trend there, be the first to start recruiting there, be the first to whatever there. I mean sure tehre are people already there but you are still the first among all that about to move in that transfer wave. 3. Transfer frequency, you get to transfer more often, literally. This means if things turn sour in that server, he can transfer again and yet again likely be the first among them. 4. You don't have to farm, again you can spend more time doing other things, be it recruiting, be it training, whatever. Again, making you ahead of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 This is the last time winning meant something... https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/WvW_Spring_Tournament_2014 We are now in 2018. The system is changing anyway and servers are going away. This thread is moot, and nothing except an unnecessary gripe and postering to paint Anet as some shady game company that offers transfers to “siphon” money for players... And no, sorry, Anet doesn’t get rich off of wvw players transferring... everything pve side creates the greatest portion of income. Just because along the way some players used the server transfer option as a way to stack servers doesn’t equate to “pay to win”... you “win” nothing now, there is no “super cool heroes” tournament competition coded into the game where players claim themselves the ultimate champion. Sure, if you’re the type of person who needs to feel special about being #1 in a match up then more power to ya... But the reward systems added makes sure that all players, regardless of place, get rewarded. Just because some of you want to distort what the phrase “pay to win” means, doesn’t mean that distortion is true... It’s silly to try to get overly technical and inject some philosophical meanings to things, and it’s essentially an effort to make Anet look bad. Let me know when I can buy better gear stats than ascended quality on the gemstone, and items that keep my character from dying, so I can have clear power advantages by forking over cash... Then we can have this “pay to win” argument... Sad. 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