DUST Search - What is Pay-to-Win?

Sir Snugglz wrote:

Aeon Amadi wrote:

Define it in your own words, please.

in terms of dust....

While it offers a free to play option, the only way to be on a competitive level or beat strong players in terms of skills, equipment, experience (boosters), etc

pay to win means that when a paying players fights a free to play player, the paying player will win every time. Assuming both players have an equal chance of winning. Simply put, a paying player has some sort of advantage over the free to play player. A playing player will also have more paths to choose from in terms of suits/vehicles when on the battlefield because of the difference in SP.

Another way to look at is, if it was not pay to win, a free to play player and a paying player should ideally have the same lifetime SP and same opportunity to skill into every skill available to them if they earned the same amount of of WP, time spent playing, SP earned. Then, winning player will be based on which path they chose and skill. \

take your pick. lol.

League of legends is a good example of a none pay to win game. Money is mostly spent on champion skins which have no effect on the battlefield. A champion with a skin will not have an advantage over the same champion without a skill.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7635	Posted - 2014.12.30 05:16:00 - [1] - Quote Define it in your own words, please. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7635	Posted - 2014.12.30 05:30:00 - [2] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Define it in your own words, please. in terms of dust.... While it offers a free to play option, the only way to be on a competitive level or beat strong players in terms of skills, equipment, experience (boosters), etc pay to win means that when a paying players fights a free to play player, the paying player will win every time. Assuming both players have an equal chance of winning. Simply put, a paying player has some sort of advantage over the free to play player. A playing player will also have more paths to choose from in terms of suits/vehicles when on the battlefield because of the difference in SP. Another way to look at is, if it was not pay to win, a free to play player and a paying player should ideally have the same lifetime SP and same opportunity to skill into every skill available to them if they earned the same amount of of WP, time spent playing, SP earned. Then, winning player will be based on which path they chose and skill. \ take your pick. lol. League of legends is a good example of a none pay to win game. Money is mostly spent on champion skins which have no effect on the battlefield. A champion with a skin will not have an advantage over the same champion without a skill. So assuming they're equal in combat, would not having to pay for the loss of the suit not be an incredible advantage in a game that largely focuses on loss, consequence, and risk of personal finances? Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7635	Posted - 2014.12.30 14:08:00 - [3] - Quote Addressing a few responses: It was stated by members of the CPM, CCP, and the community that Boosters are not pay-to-win because they basically only allow you to arrive at the highest skill levels sooner than a free-to-play player. Essentially, taking off weeks to fully outfit a suit with the best gear because you paid. Aurum Items -ARE NOT- the same as ISK variants in that they have reduced skill requirements to use. They function similarly (it could be argued that the ISK variants are better because you'd have better associated skills to bonus the items) but you ARE able to use them sooner than a free-to-play player. APEX Suits are also not "worthless" and in certain ways -are- better than Standard BPOs due to fitting capability. I know that the Amarr Assault has two basic armor plates, which give similar HP values as a Complex Plate (which is by itself incredibly expensive on CPU/PG). Further more, if you try to make a similar build on a Standard suit - even with Complex modules - you will always come up short in some way simply because you don't have enough slots to match up. In that way, APEX suits are better in that they provide quantity over quality of modules. The penultimate problem with Aurum items in general, however, is that they are generated THROUGH out-of-game currency. They are not built, they are not manufactured, they are not 'bought'. They are conjured out of thin air simply because a player shelled out the money for them. This, in a game that is largely about risk and loss. Imagine, if you will, if an instance of corporate espionage were to take place and a player stole 'x' amount of ISK from a corporation of other players.... Imagine how much effect that would have if they use Aurum items and/or BPOs. Imagine how little anyone would care to hear that story knowing that there are ways of going around the in-game risk and loss. That's kind of what we have right now. You can kill a guy a billion times over in an APEX suit and it will never discourage him because it doesn't affect him at all. He'll just spawn in again, no questions asked. The CPM used the standpoint that it's okay because Dust 514 doesn't have a player economy like Eve Online does. We just recently got an ability to sell off items (even though you have to spend real money on both the market agent and loyalty ranks to get any sort of value out of those items) and we're apparently going to get player trading soon. That, my friends, is an economy, however rudimentary. Imagine the value of standard dropsuits when we have BPOs running around. Why even bother selling them, you wonder? And that by itself is an economic impact caused by a real-life payment option. There -IS- no reason to buy ISK variants of the standard dropsuits because of that very fact alone. Do I think those items are pay-to-win? Probably not. But I also don't think they should have ever been introduced in a game that thrives on player driven content and stories. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7635	Posted - 2014.12.30 14:40:00 - [4] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: The CPM used the standpoint that it's okay because Dust 514 doesn't have a player economy like Eve Online does. We just recently got an ability to sell off items (even though you have to spend real money on both the market agent and loyalty ranks to get any sort of value out of those items) and we're apparently going to get player trading soon. That, my friends, is an economy, however rudimentary. Imagine the value of standard dropsuits when we have BPOs running around. Why even bother selling them, you wonder? And that by itself is an economic impact caused by a real-life payment option. We are selling items to an NPC market, not a player. That's not an economy anymore than selling items to a vendor in WoW is an economy. We don't have an "auction house" or the ability to open a trade window with another player to exchange X for Y. Underlined/bolded bit. Aeon Amadi wrote: The CPM used the standpoint that it's okay because Dust 514 doesn't have a player economy like Eve Online does. We just recently got an ability to sell off items (even though you have to spend real money on both the market agent and loyalty ranks to get any sort of value out of those items) and we're apparently going to get player trading soon. That, my friends, is an economy, however rudimentary. Imagine the value of standard dropsuits when we have BPOs running around. Why even bother selling them, you wonder? And that by itself is an economic impact caused by a real-life payment option. There -IS- no reason to buy ISK variants of the standard dropsuits because of that very fact alone. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7637	Posted - 2014.12.30 15:52:00 - [5] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: and we're apparently going to get player trading soon. SIMPLE player trading. Select the item, select recipient, adjust QTY, send. That's all. It's not an exchange. Okay, so now we're moving to goalpost back a few more notches... Like every other time we introduce some new Aurum-only feature... Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7637	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:10:00 - [6] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Okay, so now we're moving to goalpost back a few more notches... Like every other time we introduce some new Aurum-only feature... It's almost as if everything isn't a perfect monochromatic black and white Strange, I know. An exchange, a true exchange, allows players to open a window, offer X good for Y ISK. Both parties see what is on the table and are able to agree to trade. Items change hands instantly and without a chance of failure or shenanigans. Players can trust the exchange will take place. Simple player trading is useful, and it is the beginning of what one day might become a player economy, but without player manufacturing and market/auction house UI it's just a way for me to give all of my officer MD to my corpmate. I disagree. Bartering is the beginning of an economy. It was argued that ISK generation in PC was destroying "what little of the game's economy there was" but then in the same context active play and using BPOs would also infringe on that economy in the same way. Now, we're saying that the BPO's are okay, ISK generation is still bad (but clamoring for more ISK payouts in Pubs), and that economy doesn't start until active player trade occurs. This isn't "everything isn't a perfect monochromatic" it legitimately is a moving goalpost. The definitions of "Pay-to-Win" and "Economy" keep changing to suit the situation and I'd imagine that even after simple trading (which is on the table) gets implemented then it suddenly won't be a good enough reason NOT to have BPO's or Aurum Items that would significantly impact the economy in a very real way. Why even bother with the ISK variants if you have earlier access to higher tiers of Aurum items? Why not just spend more ISK to buy Aurum gear off of a player who frequently opens salvage boxes? Salvage boxes are a gamble to begin with and you don't always get something worthwhile, let alone something you can use. I'm not going to care if I exchange them for ISK. What I do care about is when I have no choice but to sell it to an NPC Market Agent because no-one will buy the damned things due to BPO proliferation. This isn't covering the fact that I don't think players should trust the exchange will take place. There should always be a level of uncertainty and you should always have to double/triple check every exchange you perform because -that's just the way New Eden works-. I strongly feel that CCP should have as little impact on the economy as possible but I know that's about as far fetched as the game actually having 50,000 people online at any given time. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7637	Posted - 2014.12.30 16:16:00 - [7] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Pay-to-win is when you can gain a superior advantage which cannot be gained in any amount of time by non-paying users. Things that get you stuff faster or earlier than you otherwise would is not pay to win. Sure, we've established that, but it certainly isn't in the spirit of New Eden. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7639	Posted - 2014.12.30 19:07:00 - [8] - Quote Ripley Riley wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Sure, we've established that, but it certainly isn't in the spirit of New Eden. There are several things in Dust 514 that don't exist in the "spirit of New Eden". CCP Rattati and Rouge seem to want Dust to exist far and away from Eve Online in many areas, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Eve Online is a successful subscription-based PC internet spaceship betrayal simulator. Not all of those concepts transfer well to a F2P console FPS. Fizzer XCIV wrote: That because EVR is sub based, but Dust is F2P. They need to make money somehow, and there isn't any real visual customization options yet. Take that argument away and what do you have? Just because it is a free-to-play game doesn't mean that it has to detract solely from what made the universe it is based in popular to begin with. Further more, I'd argue that if we ever want Dust 514 or Project Legion to ever be taken seriously it would need to adhere to those same rules. I've been playing Eve Online since 2006 and I'm already iffy over what we currently have in Dust 514 with what little link is there. The very idea that Dust 514 players could potentially impact the things I work for in Eve Online with all of this Aurum non-sense is a travesty. Without the Eve link, Dust 514 is a pretty shoddy lobby shooter. As such, we should take care of it and make sure that it actually has meaningful opportunities in that Eve link, rather than bastardizing everything that the link stands for in the name of money. And, while we're discussing how CCP needs to make money somehow... Planetside 2 isn't exaclty hurting for cash and about the only thing you can buy with real money over there is vanity items. We have the capabilities to produce vanity items, but it's being dedicated to other things like Salvage Boxes. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7643	Posted - 2014.12.31 08:43:00 - [9] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Pay-to-win is when you can gain a superior advantage which cannot be gained in any amount of time by non-paying users. Things that get you stuff faster or earlier than you otherwise would is not pay to win. Sure, we've established that, but it certainly isn't in the spirit of New Eden. As there's only one other game in New Eden at present, and it charges a subscription fee, are you suggesting the "spirit of New Eden" is to boot out everyone who can't afford to pay to play? It's a different income model, it's going to work differently than EVE. Look at your own argument from the opposite end of the spectrum: If Eve Online went free-to-play, would it be okay to suddenly make BPO's not require any material cost? Would it be okay to only allow certain players to have attribute-enhancing implants because they pay but not other players? Would it be okay to say that they can't have the loot they got from killing other players without buying keys to open the wreck? I'm not at all suggesting that we "boot out everyone who can't afford to pay to play", make no mistake. Even if that were the case, there are ways for Eve Online players to play the game without ever having to spend real money either, so that argument is further flawed. There is, however, no way for Eve Online players to completely circumvent their losses by conjuring items and benefits out of thin air. They purchase PLEX, which is sold for ISK, but that ISK came from -somewhere- and was earned by at least one player. It isn't like Aurum gear which literally wills itself into existence, has no cost, or otherwise presents itself with enormous economic benefits. But let's assume for a moment that we didn't care about the economy, as I explain below: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: I am confused; Is this economy based argument or a material based argument being the subversion of this conversation? We currently do not have a material based economy something eve online enjoys and something I know for damn well most FPS shooters don't give a crap about. The isk economy is intangibly broken for most perspectives and needs correction over time from the damage that PC alone has caused. NPC retailers will be a thing for a very very very long time. If we're going to speak for every player at their behest then allow me to do the same: Dust 514 players came to Dust 514 for the Eve link, to go down the rabbit hole as far as they want. Consider for a moment the contradictions involved with BPOs, just as an example. I can't understand how it's seemingly okay to allow low-tiered items to be exempt from the economic fallout but high tier items are not. Consider this: - What purpose is served by forcing a player who has not made enormous gains from PC to run low-tiered gear that has no ISK cost in order to afford high tier gear that does? - Is that purpose meaningful to gameplay for any reason other than being an inconvenience whenever they do have to run BPOs to gain ISK? - Does that purpose have any meaningful impact to players' sense of progression? The community has a lot of standpoints on the matter: BPOs are not effective for PC, not everyone plays in PC, the players that do are OP for being able to run Proto all the time, we did away with ISK generation -in- PC BECAUSE they were too rich/powerful, but at the same time we want to increase ISK gains in pub matches to allow more players to be able to run what they want. If players genuinely want to be able to run what they want, then why prevent them from doing that? If they don't care for the economy then what is the premise of having it in the first place if for any reason other than to justify the existence of pay-for-items? Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7643	Posted - 2014.12.31 09:41:00 - [10] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: what is the premise of having it in the first place if for any reason other than to justify the existence of pay-for-items? The NPE. If every player that has PRO gear could run it all the time, it would massively increase the noob-vet disparity and devastate the NPE. ISK payouts need to be balanced to prevent 24/7 protostomps. ISK will -never- be a good balancing mechanic, this has been stated a billion times over because there will always be players who can afford to run the best gear permanently. NPE is a terrible justification because we want to encourage players to enjoy their gameplay experience and have fights determined by skill, not by power level gimmicks. If every player that has Proto gear could run it all the time (which many already can), then it would further give credence to reasonings why Tieracide should happen. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.

Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7643	Posted - 2014.12.31 11:01:00 - [11] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Back in Chromosome, the Codewish Duvolle did .3 damage more than a Isk Duvolle. While this was barely even 1%, it was an advantage. An advantage that directly impacted the in-game flow, and was only obtainable through AUR. As little advantage as that gave, it was enough. Boosters are not Pay To Win, as SP does not directly win the fight. You can pick any fresh character and slay a 52m SP noob. Same with any Aur item ATM, as they don't effect battle in a direct way. Pair up a BPO user against a non-BPO user using similar gear. Give each 1,000,000 ISK and have them fight each other constantly, 1-v-1, until they run out of ISK. Who's going to run out faster? Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.
Aeon Amadi Chimera Core 7643	Posted - 2014.12.31 11:15:00 - [12] - Quote Fizzer XCIV wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Lynn Beck wrote: Back in Chromosome, the Codewish Duvolle did .3 damage more than a Isk Duvolle. While this was barely even 1%, it was an advantage. An advantage that directly impacted the in-game flow, and was only obtainable through AUR. As little advantage as that gave, it was enough. Boosters are not Pay To Win, as SP does not directly win the fight. You can pick any fresh character and slay a 52m SP noob. Same with any Aur item ATM, as they don't effect battle in a direct way. Pair up a BPO user against a non-BPO user using similar gear. Give each 1,000,000 ISK and have them fight each other constantly, 1-v-1, until they run out of ISK. Who's going to run out faster? Give 2 EVE players the the fit, and 2 Billion ISK and have them 1v1 until they run out of ISK. Give 1of them a plex that they can sell. Which one will run out of ISK first? Again, not nearly the same thing and it frustrates me that you cannot grasp this simple concept. PLEX is bought for real money by an Eve Player. He then sells it on the Eve Online to another player for in-game ISK, which -HAD NO OTHER WAY- of being generated save by earning it through in-game methods. That ISK is used to purchase equipment that had to have been sold by an NPC vendor or created by another player. Even if it came from a BPO in Eve Online it had to have been manufactured with in-game materials that another player had to accumulate. PLEX is -NOT- conjuring ISK out of thin air. Someone had to work for it and traded that ISK to the player selling his PLEX; it is a rightful exchange of ISK and real-currency in which CCP still gets the actual currency, but the ISK traded was still accounted for. It was still accumulated by -SOMEONE-. BPO's in Dust 514 are nothing like this. You pay CCP, you get something that never runs out, never has to be replaced, cost nothing in-game, and will never cost anything in-game. You pay -ONCE- and will never have to pay again. An Eve player has to find a buyer, can potentially lose that PLEX card doing so, and will eventually run out of the ISK that he exchanged it for, requiring him to spend more money to replenish. A BPO user in Dust 514 pays once, and that is the end of the story. He will always win in the long-run, regardless of how terrible of a player he may be. I would be 100% -COMPLETELY FINE- with BPO's if they were cosmetic items that still required the player to spend ISK to replenish, much in the way that cosmetic ships in Eve Online work. That is not the case. Aeon's Links In an effort to be "positive" I will agree to everything CCP does.