Pay to Win

Kiralyn2000

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

1. It is pay to win in PVE. Paying for convenience is pay to win. It's a very simple concept.

We're just going to have to 150% disagree on that.

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

1. It is pay to win in PVE. Paying for convenience is pay to win. It's a very simple concept.

We're just going to have to 150% disagree on that.

I honestly wouldn’t bother with them anymore, reading the posts is literally the same garbage they keep throwing out.

KappaKid83

BNOC wrote: »

It's one of those though, when you look at percentages on achievements, it's seemingly much less.

Xbox stats:
Achieved level 50:
Only 7.25% of gamers unlocked this

Spend your first Champion Point:
Only 7.14% of gamers unlocked this

etc;

I suppose it helps when they do the F2p events, game pass and whatever on PC/PS4 that draws thousands of temporary accounts in.

I stole this from another thread but it pertains to some of my argument. Less than 7.5% of people on XBOX(I know lesser populated platform but tangible numbers) have even reached level 50. So which number do you create an ease of life improvement more for, the 7.5% or the 92.5% percent.

vivisectvib16_ESO

ffs, buying skill lines and skyshards that you've already collected on your main, for alt characters, is NOT "pay to win." It's "pay to save the time of having to do what you've already done all over again."

Kiralyn2000

Ermiq wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game...<snip> , , ,What do you think?

I think you do not know what P2W really means if you are calling ESO P2W or moving towards that. It sounds more like entitlement is driving your impression.

Pay to win is paying for an advantage....

...that you can only get with cash.

i.e, when people who pay $ gain an advantage that people who don't pay $ can't get.


Like all those wonderful Eastern open-pvp games that sell things like better healing potions/BIS gear/faster mounts/etc in their cash shops. Oh, and item enchantment systems where you need to get everything to +14 in order to compete, but you need cash shop consumables to have more than a 1% chance of success at the enchanting. With your gear being destroyed if you fail. That's one's a big p2w.

And what's the real difference between enchanting to +14 faster and getting skills unlocked faster?

You've clearly never had the misfortune of playing one of those style games. The difference is that without paying cash it won't happen. Ever. (or at least at lottery-ticket level odds). Once you hit +8-10, the success rate on enchanting the next +1 has dropped below 5-10%. The last several are 1% or worse. And if you fail an enchant, your materials are lost and there's a chance to either lose enchantment levels or lose the item entirely (depending on the game). Which means re-farming that VMA Inferno Staff and then grinding out all those enchant materials again. And again. And again. And again.
(oh, and do this for 10 equipment slots. While the open-world pvpers who have paid for all those enchantment boosters are killing you. And in the worst of the games, looting your gear off your corpse. YAAAAAAAAAY!)

It really has no comparison at all, to leveling any of the skill lines in this game. Those are all guaranteed to happen once you've put in enough time (under a day for most of them). You don't lose your progress in the skill line if you fail the 1% check to gain level 9 (unless you paid $!).

VaranisArano

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rake wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game... I think they should implement a means in which players can earn crowns within the game. The crown's could be tied to achievements or trophies. What do you think?

So because you can buy skill lines on ALTERNATE characters it is pay to win? Please, you have to grind the subsequent skill line on another character first before you can even unlock it on a second, third, etc. character.

Was it a seemingly huge money grab to buff all skills within purchasable skill lines to be almost BiS across the board? Yes. But you still had to grind at least once to get it done. It is not pay to win, it is pay for convenience.

Put down the pitchfork and get to grinding.

what about PvP on low level alts?
you clearly didnt see how it looks like to face someone lvl 20 with all guilds maxed while ur poor low lvl alt still struggles to get things done the non P2W way

Are you and the other people stating the low level alt argument going to always have low level alts or are you going to level them to max level and jump into CP and Non-CP max level campaigns? Seems pretty asinine to try and not level these characters as there is no way to lock a characters level as there was in WoW(twinks). Also, there are exponentially more efficient ways to level a character than doing low level BGs, seems like this may be a better avenue for you.

Its a temporary advantage, but still an advantage over non-paying players who can't possibly have unlocked those skills at that level. A non paying level 10 can't possibly have Vigor or any other alliance war skill unlocked when they enter PVP for the first time.

And actually, running the daily random battleground starting at level 10 is a pretty good way to level up, especially if you can't stand doing the Alikr Dolmen grind for hours. I tend to level up my recent alts via the daily random BG and dungeon because its at least a change of pace from grinding the same content. At least each fight is a little different. To each their own!

I understand that it is a pretty good way to level up but not the most efficient. And yes to each their own, that's the cool thing about this game, you can, for the most part, play it how you'd like. But in reality I would guess less than 3% of the player base plays the low level BGs and buys these skill lines for these alts. Maybe they will buy the skill line after they hit max, I know with currently leveling a Temp and a Necro I don't want to commit too early to my eso+ crown usage too early in case my taste for a class changes, but very rarely, in my opinion, blast off their crowns on something they MAY finish leveling.

I understand that your argument is essentially "Its just a small problem only effecting a small number of players for a short time."

Whereas my argumemt is "Its a temporary problem that impacts a relatively small population, sure, but no less real for the players it impacts."

ZOS ignored the impact this would have on low level BGs and the low level Cyrodiil campaign. IMO, that's a problem for those two game modes and ZOS ought to have considered them. Whether they are small or don't impact a lot of players is no excuse for developers allowing players to buy advantages, even just temporary ones, over their non-paying opponents.

I think that you are right with this part of the argument but I think as a whole it is such a small number within the game that its' tangible effects to the gameplay are minute. Also, to address the small problem part of your post, do you think the game should worry more about early game play/content or the entirety of the rest of the game which comes at and after achieving max level? I would assume it is healthier to the game to concentrate more on the late/max level stuff than the early to mid content.

Personally, I don't think it was an either/or situation. I think the Devs could have chosen to implement low level acquisition of skill lines in such a way that allowed non-paying players to have an equal opportunity to gain those skills without hampering the end game, max CP use of those skills lines.

But they didn't choose to, and so low level PVP has to deal with paying players buying temporary advantages. I think its pretty sad when even the Devs treat a gameplay as basically "so small, the problems we caused don't matter to enough players for us to do this properly."

KappaKid83

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rake wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game... I think they should implement a means in which players can earn crowns within the game. The crown's could be tied to achievements or trophies. What do you think?

So because you can buy skill lines on ALTERNATE characters it is pay to win? Please, you have to grind the subsequent skill line on another character first before you can even unlock it on a second, third, etc. character.

Was it a seemingly huge money grab to buff all skills within purchasable skill lines to be almost BiS across the board? Yes. But you still had to grind at least once to get it done. It is not pay to win, it is pay for convenience.

Put down the pitchfork and get to grinding.

what about PvP on low level alts?
you clearly didnt see how it looks like to face someone lvl 20 with all guilds maxed while ur poor low lvl alt still struggles to get things done the non P2W way

Are you and the other people stating the low level alt argument going to always have low level alts or are you going to level them to max level and jump into CP and Non-CP max level campaigns? Seems pretty asinine to try and not level these characters as there is no way to lock a characters level as there was in WoW(twinks). Also, there are exponentially more efficient ways to level a character than doing low level BGs, seems like this may be a better avenue for you.

Its a temporary advantage, but still an advantage over non-paying players who can't possibly have unlocked those skills at that level. A non paying level 10 can't possibly have Vigor or any other alliance war skill unlocked when they enter PVP for the first time.

And actually, running the daily random battleground starting at level 10 is a pretty good way to level up, especially if you can't stand doing the Alikr Dolmen grind for hours. I tend to level up my recent alts via the daily random BG and dungeon because its at least a change of pace from grinding the same content. At least each fight is a little different. To each their own!

I understand that it is a pretty good way to level up but not the most efficient. And yes to each their own, that's the cool thing about this game, you can, for the most part, play it how you'd like. But in reality I would guess less than 3% of the player base plays the low level BGs and buys these skill lines for these alts. Maybe they will buy the skill line after they hit max, I know with currently leveling a Temp and a Necro I don't want to commit too early to my eso+ crown usage too early in case my taste for a class changes, but very rarely, in my opinion, blast off their crowns on something they MAY finish leveling.

I understand that your argument is essentially "Its just a small problem only effecting a small number of players for a short time."

Whereas my argumemt is "Its a temporary problem that impacts a relatively small population, sure, but no less real for the players it impacts."

ZOS ignored the impact this would have on low level BGs and the low level Cyrodiil campaign. IMO, that's a problem for those two game modes and ZOS ought to have considered them. Whether they are small or don't impact a lot of players is no excuse for developers allowing players to buy advantages, even just temporary ones, over their non-paying opponents.

I think that you are right with this part of the argument but I think as a whole it is such a small number within the game that its' tangible effects to the gameplay are minute. Also, to address the small problem part of your post, do you think the game should worry more about early game play/content or the entirety of the rest of the game which comes at and after achieving max level? I would assume it is healthier to the game to concentrate more on the late/max level stuff than the early to mid content.

Personally, I don't think it was an either/or situation. I think the Devs could have chosen to implement low level acquisition of skill lines in such a way that allowed non-paying players to have an equal opportunity to gain those skills without hampering the end game, max CP use of those skills lines.

But they didn't choose to, and so low level PVP has to deal with paying players buying temporary advantages. I think its pretty sad when even the Devs treat a gameplay as basically "so small, the problems we caused don't matter to enough players for us to do this properly."

I think at this point we are going to both state our points that side with the arguments and we will both disagree with each other, and that's actually okay since the conversation was civil and brought about some cool points. In the end we agree to disagree, all good, happy hunting!

VaranisArano

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rake wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game... I think they should implement a means in which players can earn crowns within the game. The crown's could be tied to achievements or trophies. What do you think?

So because you can buy skill lines on ALTERNATE characters it is pay to win? Please, you have to grind the subsequent skill line on another character first before you can even unlock it on a second, third, etc. character.

Was it a seemingly huge money grab to buff all skills within purchasable skill lines to be almost BiS across the board? Yes. But you still had to grind at least once to get it done. It is not pay to win, it is pay for convenience.

Put down the pitchfork and get to grinding.

what about PvP on low level alts?
you clearly didnt see how it looks like to face someone lvl 20 with all guilds maxed while ur poor low lvl alt still struggles to get things done the non P2W way

Are you and the other people stating the low level alt argument going to always have low level alts or are you going to level them to max level and jump into CP and Non-CP max level campaigns? Seems pretty asinine to try and not level these characters as there is no way to lock a characters level as there was in WoW(twinks). Also, there are exponentially more efficient ways to level a character than doing low level BGs, seems like this may be a better avenue for you.

Its a temporary advantage, but still an advantage over non-paying players who can't possibly have unlocked those skills at that level. A non paying level 10 can't possibly have Vigor or any other alliance war skill unlocked when they enter PVP for the first time.

And actually, running the daily random battleground starting at level 10 is a pretty good way to level up, especially if you can't stand doing the Alikr Dolmen grind for hours. I tend to level up my recent alts via the daily random BG and dungeon because its at least a change of pace from grinding the same content. At least each fight is a little different. To each their own!

I understand that it is a pretty good way to level up but not the most efficient. And yes to each their own, that's the cool thing about this game, you can, for the most part, play it how you'd like. But in reality I would guess less than 3% of the player base plays the low level BGs and buys these skill lines for these alts. Maybe they will buy the skill line after they hit max, I know with currently leveling a Temp and a Necro I don't want to commit too early to my eso+ crown usage too early in case my taste for a class changes, but very rarely, in my opinion, blast off their crowns on something they MAY finish leveling.

I understand that your argument is essentially "Its just a small problem only effecting a small number of players for a short time."

Whereas my argumemt is "Its a temporary problem that impacts a relatively small population, sure, but no less real for the players it impacts."

ZOS ignored the impact this would have on low level BGs and the low level Cyrodiil campaign. IMO, that's a problem for those two game modes and ZOS ought to have considered them. Whether they are small or don't impact a lot of players is no excuse for developers allowing players to buy advantages, even just temporary ones, over their non-paying opponents.

I think that you are right with this part of the argument but I think as a whole it is such a small number within the game that its' tangible effects to the gameplay are minute. Also, to address the small problem part of your post, do you think the game should worry more about early game play/content or the entirety of the rest of the game which comes at and after achieving max level? I would assume it is healthier to the game to concentrate more on the late/max level stuff than the early to mid content.

Personally, I don't think it was an either/or situation. I think the Devs could have chosen to implement low level acquisition of skill lines in such a way that allowed non-paying players to have an equal opportunity to gain those skills without hampering the end game, max CP use of those skills lines.

But they didn't choose to, and so low level PVP has to deal with paying players buying temporary advantages. I think its pretty sad when even the Devs treat a gameplay as basically "so small, the problems we caused don't matter to enough players for us to do this properly."

I think at this point we are going to both state our points that side with the arguments and we will both disagree with each other, and that's actually okay since the conversation was civil and brought about some cool points. In the end we agree to disagree, all good, happy hunting!

Sounds good. You have a great day!

Rave the Histborn

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

KappaKid83

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

Katahdin

You know what?

It doesn't matter if you think it's pay to win or not. It's here and loosing your marbles and making 1000 threads is not going to make that change.

So if you think it's pay to win and you just can't stand it, you have one option only.

Find the door.

Rave the Histborn

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

VaranisArano

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I don't care to wade into the discussion of definitions further, but seriously that's not how sources work.

Genuine advice here: don't make easily debunked claims about your sources if you want to be taken seriously. People do, in fact, fact check.

See, last night I couldnt sleep because of too mich Mtn Dew and I read the wiki article you linked for fun, along with some of their sources. There were some really interesting reads!

However, only a fraction of those sources actually discuss "pay to win." Many of them are cited for other parts of the article like the history and development of the free to play model. Sources 36- 40 are actually relevant to "pay-to-win" and several of them use a different definition of "pay to win" that the wiki article. Unfortunately, I didnt see a source for the definition given in the article even though I read the cited sources that were available in that section.

For example, #37 says "The much maligned ‘pay to win’ label in the West, where users can only really advance by handing over money, is pretty much a standard for distribution and financial gain in China."

#40, describing the removed pay to win mechanics in games like World of Tanks, says "All in-game components that are deemed to give a player an edge in a fight will no longer be available for purchase. "

So here's why you don't make easily debunked claims, okay? Don't get hyperbolic when it comes to claiming support from outside sources. You don't get to count irrelevant sources as support. So please, if you want to go all "I have X number of opinions that back me up", you gotta make sure those are relevant opinions. Most of the 46 sources have nothing to do with the definition of "pay to win" and are therefore irrelevant to your point.

So please, quit claiming to have the 46 opinions from the sources backing up your wiki article definition. That's not how sources work.

In fact, this is why I tell my students to read the wiki article just to get a general grasp on the situation, but when it comes to sources, to go directly to the article's reference list and use those sources directly. Not only do you get more sources that way, but you often get more credible and relevant sources that way.

Okay, I should probably take the teacher hat off now. On with the regularly scheduled debate.

Ermiq

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Ermiq wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game...<snip> , , ,What do you think?

I think you do not know what P2W really means if you are calling ESO P2W or moving towards that. It sounds more like entitlement is driving your impression.

Pay to win is paying for an advantage....

...that you can only get with cash.

i.e, when people who pay $ gain an advantage that people who don't pay $ can't get.


Like all those wonderful Eastern open-pvp games that sell things like better healing potions/BIS gear/faster mounts/etc in their cash shops. Oh, and item enchantment systems where you need to get everything to +14 in order to compete, but you need cash shop consumables to have more than a 1% chance of success at the enchanting. With your gear being destroyed if you fail. That's one's a big p2w.

And what's the real difference between enchanting to +14 faster and getting skills unlocked faster?

You've clearly never had the misfortune of playing one of those style games. The difference is that without paying cash it won't happen. Ever. (or at least at lottery-ticket level odds). Once you hit +8-10, the success rate on enchanting the next +1 has dropped below 5-10%. The last several are 1% or worse. And if you fail an enchant, your materials are lost and there's a chance to either lose enchantment levels or lose the item entirely (depending on the game). Which means re-farming that VMA Inferno Staff and then grinding out all those enchant materials again. And again. And again. And again.
(oh, and do this for 10 equipment slots. While the open-world pvpers who have paid for all those enchantment boosters are killing you. And in the worst of the games, looting your gear off your corpse. YAAAAAAAAAY!)

It really has no comparison at all, to leveling any of the skill lines in this game. Those are all guaranteed to happen once you've put in enough time (under a day for most of them). You don't lose your progress in the skill line if you fail the 1% check to gain level 9 (unless you paid $!).

M'kay. When it takes too much of time to get something for free, than it's pay2win. And when it takes not that much time, it's not pay2win. I've got your point.
But who's deciding where is the borderline between 'too much' and 'not that much'?
I mean, come on. You guys are WhiteKnighting trying to turn things to the 'not that bad' side, but you can't decline the fact that it's pretty much the same things with mutual roots and mutual mechanics.

PS: I've played those pay2win games. I've even spent some money in those games and I know what I'm talking about.

vivisectvib16_ESO

Ermiq wrote: »

M'kay. When it takes too much of time to get something for free, than it's pay2win. And when it takes not that much time, it's not pay2win. I've got your point.
But who's deciding where is the borderline between 'too much' and 'not that much'?
I mean, come on. You guys are WhiteKnighting trying to turn things to the 'not that bad' side, but you can't decline the fact that it's pretty much the same things with mutual roots and mutual mechanics.

I don't even think you know what you're saying. That last sentence doesn't even make sense.

red_emu

If my memory serves me right, people have been begging ZOS to put guild skill lines in crown store for years now.

VaranisArano

Ermiq wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Ermiq wrote: »

Kiralyn2000 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game...<snip> , , ,What do you think?

I think you do not know what P2W really means if you are calling ESO P2W or moving towards that. It sounds more like entitlement is driving your impression.

Pay to win is paying for an advantage....

...that you can only get with cash.

i.e, when people who pay $ gain an advantage that people who don't pay $ can't get.


Like all those wonderful Eastern open-pvp games that sell things like better healing potions/BIS gear/faster mounts/etc in their cash shops. Oh, and item enchantment systems where you need to get everything to +14 in order to compete, but you need cash shop consumables to have more than a 1% chance of success at the enchanting. With your gear being destroyed if you fail. That's one's a big p2w.

And what's the real difference between enchanting to +14 faster and getting skills unlocked faster?

You've clearly never had the misfortune of playing one of those style games. The difference is that without paying cash it won't happen. Ever. (or at least at lottery-ticket level odds). Once you hit +8-10, the success rate on enchanting the next +1 has dropped below 5-10%. The last several are 1% or worse. And if you fail an enchant, your materials are lost and there's a chance to either lose enchantment levels or lose the item entirely (depending on the game). Which means re-farming that VMA Inferno Staff and then grinding out all those enchant materials again. And again. And again. And again.
(oh, and do this for 10 equipment slots. While the open-world pvpers who have paid for all those enchantment boosters are killing you. And in the worst of the games, looting your gear off your corpse. YAAAAAAAAAY!)

It really has no comparison at all, to leveling any of the skill lines in this game. Those are all guaranteed to happen once you've put in enough time (under a day for most of them). You don't lose your progress in the skill line if you fail the 1% check to gain level 9 (unless you paid $!).

M'kay. When it takes too much of time to get something for free, than it's pay2win. And when it takes not that much time, it's not pay2win. I've got your point.
But who's deciding where is the borderline between 'too much' and 'not that much'?
I mean, come on. You guys are WhiteKnighting trying to turn things to the 'not that bad' side, but you can't decline the fact that it's pretty much the same things with mutual roots and mutual mechanics.

PS: I've played those pay2win games. I've even spent some money in those games and I know what I'm talking about.

The point being made that is those games its prohibitively hard to progress without paying money. It's possible, sure, but much, much harder.

Even the grindiest of ESO's skill lines for sale is not at the point of being prohibitively hard to progress without paying money because we've all been leveling them up without paying for the last 5 years. Not even Alliance War, when hundreds of PVE players have managed to PVP long enough to get their caltrops and get out.

Now, we can go all "but the slippery slope!" But that's not happening here and now.

red_emu

And how exactly do you "win" ESO?

Reistr_the_Unbroken

red_emu wrote: »

And how exactly do you "win" ESO?

Housing!

Jkjk

Starlock

red_emu wrote: »

And how exactly do you "win" ESO?

That answer is different for everybody, depending on their values and what they like in the game. This lies at the heart of why "pay to win" is not so easy to define.

In any case, that entire conversation is a distraction from the very real problem of predatory microtransactions on the whole and how extraordinarily common they have become. I miss the days when video games were just video games.

KappaKid83

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

Rave the Histborn

VaranisArano wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I don't care to wade into the discussion of definitions further, but seriously that's not how sources work.

Genuine advice here: don't make easily debunked claims about your sources if you want to be taken seriously. People do, in fact, fact check.

See, last night I couldnt sleep because of too mich Mtn Dew and I read the wiki article you linked for fun, along with some of their sources. There were some really interesting reads!

However, only a fraction of those sources actually discuss "pay to win." Many of them are cited for other parts of the article like the history and development of the free to play model. Sources 36- 40 are actually relevant to "pay-to-win" and several of them use a different definition of "pay to win" that the wiki article. Unfortunately, I didnt see a source for the definition given in the article even though I read the cited sources that were available in that section.

For example, #37 says "The much maligned ‘pay to win’ label in the West, where users can only really advance by handing over money, is pretty much a standard for distribution and financial gain in China."

#40, describing the removed pay to win mechanics in games like World of Tanks, says "All in-game components that are deemed to give a player an edge in a fight will no longer be available for purchase. "

So here's why you don't make easily debunked claims, okay? Don't get hyperbolic when it comes to claiming support from outside sources. You don't get to count irrelevant sources as support. So please, if you want to go all "I have X number of opinions that back me up", you gotta make sure those are relevant opinions. Most of the 46 sources have nothing to do with the definition of "pay to win" and are therefore irrelevant to your point.

So please, quit claiming to have the 46 opinions from the sources backing up your wiki article definition. That's not how sources work.

In fact, this is why I tell my students to read the wiki article just to get a general grasp on the situation, but when it comes to sources, to go directly to the article's reference list and use those sources directly. Not only do you get more sources that way, but you often get more credible and relevant sources that way.

Okay, I should probably take the teacher hat off now. On with the regularly scheduled debate.

"For example, #37 says "The much maligned ‘pay to win’ label in the West, where users can only really advance by handing over money, is pretty much a standard for distribution and financial gain in China."

So article 37 defines pay to win pretty well if you actually read it, maybe we read different articles.
"Chinese publishers hope to earn back the development budget within two weeks of launch, so everything – armor, pets, equippable angelic wings -- can be upgraded, and everything costs money. And users pay it, because they want to be first on the leaderboards."

"In general a game is considered pay-to-win when a player can gain any gameplay advantage over his non-paying peers." Hmmmmm that seems like it fits the definition really well.

"#40, describing the removed pay to win mechanics in games like World of Tanks, says "All in-game components that are deemed to give a player an edge in a fight will no longer be available for purchase. ""

So it was pay to win, they just took out the mechanics which, oh look at that, fit the definition of "giving a player an edge in a fight." Ever play World of Tanks? You could either pay for it or grind it out in game, and man it wasn't easy to grind out.

Again, I said it was an aggregate that gives you the basic definition of all these terms and if you read the articles you understand where the consensus comes from. My definition of pay to win hasn't changed through 4 pages, I can't say the same for people replying with different changes and meanings.

"In fact, this is why I tell my students to read the wiki article just to get a general grasp on the situation, but when it comes to sources, to go directly to the article's reference list and use those sources directly. Not only do you get more sources that way, but you often get more credible and relevant sources that way."

Well yeah i get you want more specific sources but this is an internet forum, I'm not writing you a bibliography on all my sources especially when you are reading them and miss the important parts of it and I have to link them to you.

Reistr_the_Unbroken

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

Plus the bold really contradicts itself, bc yes, they are seemingly hellbent cause of their snarky replies to others.

Rave the Histborn

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

KappaKid83

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I believe you are missing the point. He is stating that you are using a quote from a Wiki that is not sourced. So the definition you are using is actually just someone else's interpretation of what they feel like pay to win is. So in turn MLG could go and change that "definition" and since it is not sourced to anything then it would again be true to whatever is written on that page. You are citing this sentence because it is advantageous to your argument and you are, for some reason, hell bent on being the end all be all, absolutely right source for what is and what is not pay to win.

P.S. It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated.

"It's not pay to win, it's pay for convenience, as we have stated"

No. Let's see how your logic works with other things.

"It's not murder for hire, it's pay to shortcut to the afterlife"

"It's not bribery, it's pay for convenience"

"i'm not lying, it's truth adjustment"

I can keep changing the words around too, but pay to win is pay to win is pay to win. You can keep trying to change your definition but when you apply actual logic to it it falls apart.

I'm using it as a source because it's a 3rd party and yes it is someone elses interpretation which is why you want to use it. It seems pretty impartial and unbiased, MLG would not be.

P.S. I'm not hell bent on being right, I'm waiting for someone that has an actual idea that stands up to mine. Changing the definition of words isn't gonig to do that and saying it's only temprorary pay to win but just in sub 50 pvp, but only for like an hour, if it's a monday, and the sun is setting doesn't negate the original point that it is pay to win. Your argument boils down to "it is pay to win but not forever" which is still pay to win.

If you kill someone it's still murder, your defense isn't going to be "who cares, we all die eventually, it was a shortcut"

This line right here discredits your claim to not being hell bent on being right. You can change words and use 3rd party quotes but in reality when you use quotes than only support your narrative then are you actually being unbiased or just trying to fit your narrative. Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative.

When did i change words? All my stuff is quoted and I keep copy and pasting stuff from replies. You can't keep repeating that it's not pay to win it's pay to (insert word of the day here) and expect it to hold up. It doesn't especially when you take the line of reasoning and apply it to anything else.

"Here, you're trying to make anything you can to fit your narrative."

How? I'm consistent with pay to win being pay to win. Fitting things to a narrative is when you take something like pay to win and you have to constantly change the words (pay to short cut, pay for convenience, etc.) to fit the story. Pay to win is pay to win, and that hasn't changed for me.

You can use unsourced quotes from every friend, acquaintance and family member if you want and it will carry the same pertinence as that Wiki article you quoted does. But since you chose to use a "definition" of pay to win from that Wiki that you read that is also unsourced they are the same thing, a subjective opinion of something.

I can go look up the definition of a helicopter in a dictionary but then define it as an airplane, throw it in a Wiki unsourced and have someone call it the correct definition. The way I looked at it is subjective and not objective, which is what you're doing.

FlopsyPrince

Bighits wrote: »

Now that ESO is moving more towards a pay-to-win game... I think they should implement a means in which players can earn crowns within the game. The crown's could be tied to achievements or trophies. What do you think?

You can earn Crowns in the game, just subscribe!

idk

Just sitting back enjoying my popcorn. There is some really entertaining stuff in here.

VaranisArano

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

MLGProPlayer wrote: »

Rave the Histborn wrote: »

You can keep denying reality, it doesn't make you right.

It's the best consensus definition I could find. Sorry, I forgot this was college and I need to source everything with bibliography in order for person that keeps jumping back and forth between it's only pay to win a little (but only for like a day or an hour or ya know not long at all) and it's not pay to win. Tell ya what, maybe if the best your argument can boil down to is "I can edit that in my favor" you might just wanna bow out gracefully. I mean if you can do that why can't I edit it to say "ESO crown store is pay to win" and just end the conversation right there.

I'm sure tobacco companies couldn't find "academic" studies that their cigarettes cause cancer. It's the same thing, why would the ESRB and other gaming related organizations put out an academic definition of something that makes them look terrible? They fund all these companies, why would they pay for negative PR?

So you're saying if I changed the definition on Wikipedia, you would accept it as fact?

No, I'm saying if you changed it I can also change it.

If your argument comes down to "let me change the definition (pay for a shortcut, pay for convenience, etc.) you're wrong and you know you're wrong. Even if you did change it there's people that monitor edits on Wiki and you'd have to delete the 46 sources they link down the bottom.

I don't care to wade into the discussion of definitions further, but seriously that's not how sources work.

Genuine advice here: don't make easily debunked claims about your sources if you want to be taken seriously. People do, in fact, fact check.

See, last night I couldnt sleep because of too mich Mtn Dew and I read the wiki article you linked for fun, along with some of their sources. There were some really interesting reads!

However, only a fraction of those sources actually discuss "pay to win." Many of them are cited for other parts of the article like the history and development of the free to play model. Sources 36- 40 are actually relevant to "pay-to-win" and several of them use a different definition of "pay to win" that the wiki article. Unfortunately, I didnt see a source for the definition given in the article even though I read the cited sources that were available in that section.

For example, #37 says "The much maligned ‘pay to win’ label in the West, where users can only really advance by handing over money, is pretty much a standard for distribution and financial gain in China."

#40, describing the removed pay to win mechanics in games like World of Tanks, says "All in-game components that are deemed to give a player an edge in a fight will no longer be available for purchase. "

So here's why you don't make easily debunked claims, okay? Don't get hyperbolic when it comes to claiming support from outside sources. You don't get to count irrelevant sources as support. So please, if you want to go all "I have X number of opinions that back me up", you gotta make sure those are relevant opinions. Most of the 46 sources have nothing to do with the definition of "pay to win" and are therefore irrelevant to your point.

So please, quit claiming to have the 46 opinions from the sources backing up your wiki article definition. That's not how sources work.

In fact, this is why I tell my students to read the wiki article just to get a general grasp on the situation, but when it comes to sources, to go directly to the article's reference list and use those sources directly. Not only do you get more sources that way, but you often get more credible and relevant sources that way.

Okay, I should probably take the teacher hat off now. On with the regularly scheduled debate.

"For example, #37 says "The much maligned ‘pay to win’ label in the West, where users can only really advance by handing over money, is pretty much a standard for distribution and financial gain in China."

So article 37 defines pay to win pretty well if you actually read it, maybe we read different articles.
"Chinese publishers hope to earn back the development budget within two weeks of launch, so everything – armor, pets, equippable angelic wings -- can be upgraded, and everything costs money. And users pay it, because they want to be first on the leaderboards."

"In general a game is considered pay-to-win when a player can gain any gameplay advantage over his non-paying peers." Hmmmmm that seems like it fits the definition really well.

"#40, describing the removed pay to win mechanics in games like World of Tanks, says "All in-game components that are deemed to give a player an edge in a fight will no longer be available for purchase. ""

So it was pay to win, they just took out the mechanics which, oh look at that, fit the definition of "giving a player an edge in a fight." Ever play World of Tanks? You could either pay for it or grind it out in game, and man it wasn't easy to grind out.

Again, I said it was an aggregate that gives you the basic definition of all these terms and if you read the articles you understand where the consensus comes from. My definition of pay to win hasn't changed through 4 pages, I can't say the same for people replying with different changes and meanings.

"In fact, this is why I tell my students to read the wiki article just to get a general grasp on the situation, but when it comes to sources, to go directly to the article's reference list and use those sources directly. Not only do you get more sources that way, but you often get more credible and relevant sources that way."

Well yeah i get you want more specific sources but this is an internet forum, I'm not writing you a bibliography on all my sources especially when you are reading them and miss the important parts of it and I have to link them to you.

Again, I don't really care to debate you over definitions. We did that last night and got nowhere. Agreed to disagree and all that.

My original concern, largely adressed by your clarification, was how those 46 sources were being used.

Even in an internet forum, you already look a lot more credible when you use your sources correctly, and don't try to bolster your claims with unrelated sources. So I'm glad to see you start quoting the relevant ones! I appreciate that. It benefits your argument!

Still, you don't have to take my advice. I can't exactly make you use sources properly. But I hope you see why I objected to you claiming all 46 sources backed up your definition when most were irrelevant. I'm delighted to see you start arguing from the relevant sources. It makes your argument much stronger than citing 40-odd irrelevant sources did. Strong arguements are a good thing, even when I wind up disagreeing with the conclusions!

So carry on with the regularly scheduled debate and everyone have fun!

Enkil

Hallothiel wrote: »

Are there really players that constantly re-roll toons to be the ‘best’ in under 50 pvp? Really?

On the under 50 NA PC Cyro campaign there are entire guilds full of players that constantly do just that, some even since game launched. They make their little twinks, grind out dawn-breaker, meteor, wear good gear and all that. Go look at the Kyne/BwB thread to see all the discussions for years about it.

Seems to me the people insisting on arguing semantics over P2Win just don’t consider recent changes as such, because the P2Win aspect applies mainly to under 50 PvP environments they may not play themselves. Those are valid areas of the game, where some payers spend most or all of their time.

It’s Pay2Win for those players so all these White-Knight routines by those of you riding in here to defend Zo$ are misguided. Why argue for pages about such nonsense?

VaranisArano

Enkil wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

Are there really players that constantly re-roll toons to be the ‘best’ in under 50 pvp? Really?

Lol.. have you never played under 50 Cyro? There are entire guilds full of players that constantly do just that, some even since game launched. They make their little twinks, grind out dawn-breaker, meteor, wear good gear and all that. Go look at the Kyne/BwB thread to see all the discussions for years about it.

Seems to me they people insisting on arguing semantics over P2Win just don’t consider recent changes as such, because the P2Win aspect applies mainly to PvP under 50 environments they may not play themselves. Those are valid areas of the game, where some payers spend most or all of their time.

There certainly are players who reroll characters to stay in low level PVP.

But unless they have a lot more money than me, I doubt those are the same players who are going to spend a bunch of crowns to unlock skill lines and skyshards.

How many players are going to buy skill lines and skyshards for a character they are going to delete at level 50?

The real problem in low level PVP is from the players who purchase the skill lines and then level through the low level PVP. Sure, their end goal is the max level PVE or PVP gameplay, but they damage low level PVP on their way through.