Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Transfer is a p2w option, do you agree?

SkyShroud.2865

By SkyShroud.2865
in World vs. World

Recommended Posts

Vayne.8563

Vayne.8563

Posted
Posted

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:The problem is you're equating a side winning with you winning. It's not like that in WvW.

Isn't it though? WvW is a team based game mode, not a dueling server. If my team wins I win if my team loses I lose. This is the way of all team based games I've ever played even real life team sports.

Are you saying that individuals paying for team based competitive advantages can't ever be considered to be paying to win?

You can be in the winning side and get nothing for it.

Would you say that your definition of "pay to win" could be stated as " paying for personal power from a cash shop in order to win an even greater material reward in the game?"

Your side comes in first. You haven't won anything.

It seems to me like you're using the language "win anything" interchangeably with "get nothing for it" and it's pretty confusing to me because I'm not sure if in this instance you mean that when your team wins the game you haven't won the game or if you mean when your team wins the game you don't get anything you personally value for being on the winning team. Which did you mean here?

I disagree with your assessement. When the game launched, it was closer to true, because winning in WvW gave you specific buffs which Anet has removed from the game. But in PvP, you only win by participating and perhaps getting carried by your team. There's a definite plus to winning. There's also a leaderboard. There's a ladder. There's ranking. That just doesn't exist in WvW. You're taking the broadest sense of win and trying to apply it to pay to win. WvW isn't set up that way. Winning is amorphous.

Hell there are servers that intentionally lose in WvW to change tiers. I simply can't agree with your definition of "winning".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 164
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Swagger.1459

Swagger.1459

Posted
Posted

@"SkyShroud.2865"

Talk about making up your own interpretation...

“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".”

Again, what cash “advantage” is described as in the mmo realm...

“buffs, weapons, or capabilities”“ability upgrades”“fight better with flat stat boosts”

You don’t get to reinvent the application of the word in this case. All you are doing is taking the word “advantage” out of context.

You have zero facts to back up your claim that servers transfers are pay to win. I quoted clear examples of what the mmo realm considers pay to win “since you can't accept me telling you are wrong in your interpretation, if others tell you are wrong, maybe you could accept it.”... All you can bring to the table is winning “intangible assets”, because you certainly can’t bring up winning a tournament, or extra personal power or special rewards only available to the 1st place winner...

I’m sorry, but you lost this argument from the start. Next time try coming up with a more compelling argument and have more facts on your side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Israel.7056

Israel.7056

Posted
Posted

@"Vayne.8563" said:I disagree with your assessement.

I have so many questions just on this part alone.

Which part do you disagree with? That WvW is a team based game mode? Are you saying that winning the matchup isn't how one actually wins in WvW? If so, how does one actually win in WvW? Are you saying no one really wins? If so how do you explain all the bandwagoning and server stacking and fairweathering over the years before during and after seasons and the fact that certain servers have had to be manually kept closed to keep people from flocking there? Do you think all that behavior has been a random series of bizarre coincidences?

When the game launched, it was closer to true, because winning in WvW gave you specific buffs which Anet has removed from the game. But in PvP, you only win by participating and perhaps getting carried by your team. There's a definite plus to winning. There's also a leaderboard. There's a ladder. There's ranking. That just doesn't exist in WvW. You're taking the broadest sense of win and trying to apply it to pay to win. WvW isn't set up that way. Winning is amorphous.

Your original definition of "pay to win" as "purchasing personal power from a cash shop" makes no mention of what specifically constitutes "winning," what one must win for "winning" or that purchasing "personal power" must give any sort of competitive advantage at all. What definition are you basing all these extra qualifying conditions on?

Would you say your full definition of "pay to win" would be something like "purchasing personal power from a cash shop that gives a demonstrable competitive advantage against other players that ultimately leads to some sort of greater material benefit in game?"

I simply can't agree with your definition of "winning".

What is your definition of "winning" in the context of WvW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@Swagger.1459 said:

@SkyShroud.2865

Talk about making up your own interpretation...

“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".”

Again, what cash “advantage” is described as in the mmo realm...

“buffs, weapons, or capabilities”“ability upgrades”“fight better with flat stat boosts”

You don’t get to reinvent the application of the word in this case. All you are doing is taking the word “advantage” out of context.

You have zero facts to back up your claim that servers transfers are pay to win. I quoted clear examples of what the mmo realm considers pay to win “since you can't accept me telling you are wrong in your interpretation, if others tell you are wrong, maybe you could accept it.”... All you can bring to the table is winning “intangible assets”, because you certainly can’t bring up winning a tournament, or extra personal power or special rewards only available to the 1st place winner...

I’m sorry, but you lost this argument from the start. Next time try coming up with a more compelling argument and have more facts on your side.

I am sure you read my reply, I ask of you to go to another community other of your choice to see for yourself. This isn't my interpretation alone, I already answered you and there is a few here who too think transfer is a p2w option.

You are not convincing people by bringing up a definition not written by authority but by a author who is just yet another average joe like you and me. Furthermore, I already explained that is meant for that game and I told you to find me a heavy p2w game that also follow that definition. I can easily tell you that definition alone did not mention booster which is easily qualified as a p2w item. Even if I do tell that, you might just gonna argue something along the line that "buffs" means booster or booster isn't p2w because saving time isn't p2w or if you can buy using golds then it isn't p2w.

The most important thing out of all arguments with you is that while I can see that you have higher tolerance towards p2w to the point that you practically normalize some p2w elements. You refuse to see others' perspective, particular in the fact they have less tolerance than you.

@Vayne.8563 said:

@Swagger.1459 said:This is the last time winning meant something...

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.

Your argument is fixated only on tangible assets. However, my definition include intangible assets. I don't think it don't make sense we don't see eye to eye.

Also, you are using fallacy to discredit the topic, that is unbecoming of a person.

The term “pay to win” is known among the gaming community as buying power advantages over those that didn’t. Period. YOU are the distorting the meaning by injecting “intangible assets” to the term “pay to win”...

Anet created server transfers so in essence YOU are implying, and others have stated, that Anet created a means to scam players of money through a game mechanic. Wrong.

You want to get technical with “pay to win”? There are lawmakers in countries who are trying to stop cash store pay to win practices and gambling addictions in games... They are trying to prevent game companies from hooking, or scamming, players into buying power/gear/stat... advantages only sold via cash shops... So you throwing around the term “pay to win” here automatically has a negative tone and connotation, whether you understand or not.

You know, I know I will get this much rejection in a gw2 bias but I do also want to see how much rejection is that.Furthermore, if you put this in a non-gw2 bias forums, people will agree gw2 too has p2w elements. So, which community are you referring to?

You mean this one? Read the comment about gw2 is technically p2w.

I already say before, it isn't about how much advantage you can get, it is about the very fact that you can even gain advantage itself is considered as p2w. To you, all those advantages are insignificant therefore you rule p2w out. Even If I did say you can buy items via monetary means, you will argue it as low gear cap because to you, you not looking at advantage, you are looking at literally "win". Coincidentally, even in heavy p2w games, even if you do get a so-called "win" gears, it doesn't mean you the only one that has it so your argument is pretty weak at this point, afterall, you need to actually win right? I mean draw doesn't count. You see how weak your definition is? If I change the perspective even just a little, your definition break apart.

The thing is no one is able to show me a weakness in my definition. If you can show me how spending actually resulted in disadvantage over other players, then you can break my definition. I say you are right.

You claim there are lawmakers on p2w, please point us the source. That is a very big claim. I do know there are some talks about RNG and gambling relationship but to say they care about p2w? really? Show me the source of your claims.

Start learning about this topic...

Maybe you need to actually read? I did say " do know there are some talks about RNG and gambling relationship" but it doesn't nesscary means they care about "p2w". They only care about RNG that looks like gambling because that is a grey area since it can overlap online gambling regulation, afterall, it involve money and rng too. That is a very big difference you know?

You tweaking logic really hard here now.

You should spend more time reading and educating yourself on this pay to win topic.

See, discrediting again.

Not to forget, you skip most part of the post in my other reply. You can't really hold up a proper argument, right?

No, you are just not paying attention or bothering to read...

“The problems started when EA decided to create an alternate revenue stream for itself based solely on loot crates and pay-to-win mechanics, with players who purchased loot crates with real money gaining a significant advantage over those who opted to just play the game.

“With these new updates, which started going live this week, the entire progression process has been revamped. Star Cards, which give access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities will only be earned through gameplay”

Here the thing, it even write "significant" and "advantage". But, if it isn't "significant", then, they wouldn't have removed it. Lol.But how is that related to the article before your's?

All you are doing is distorting the term “pay to win” here. Spend more time reading so you can actually understand this topic, and what you are implying by throwing around the “pay to win” label.

I edited the post because as I post, I find out that you are easily confused over actual wordings.

The confusion is on your part…

ME...“There are lawmakers in countries who are trying to stop cash store pay to win practices”

INFO FROM SITE...“The problems started when EA decided to create an alternate revenue stream for itself based solely on loot crates and pay-to-win mechanics"

EA SOLD ITEMS (Starcards) ONLY AVAILABLE BY CASH THAT GAVE “access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities”...‘with players who purchased loot crates with real money gaining a significant advantage over those who opted to just play the game.’

EA CHANGED THE CASH ONLY “PAY TO WIN” STARCARDS…“Star Cards, which give access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities will only be earned through gameplay”

"buffs, weapons, or capabilities" EARNED THROUGH GAMEPLAY not cash shop “pay to win”...

YOU are distorting the phrase "pay to win".

Lawmakers are not trying to change mmos so they don't have server transfers for "intangible assets". Lawmakers are trying to regulate mmos selling "access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities" only obtainable through a cash purchase.

Selectively quoting article convenience for you is the problem with your arguments.

Of particular focus in this uproar has been the "loot box" mechanism. In exchange for paid crystals or for credits earned during game play, players can buy "crates" that randomly grant advantages.
Your own source:
Keyword: "Randomly" aka "gambling" aka "rng"

"a Star Wars themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money."
Your own source:
Keyword: "online casino designed" aka "gambling" aka "rng"

Yet again, you conveniently interpreting the laws in your own way to suit your argument. Really?

I am saying this once again. In the eyes of laws, as long
no RNG is involved using cash
, you are not running a casino like game, you do not require a gambling license to function, you do not require players to be at approved age. This doesn't say anything about p2w against the law or does the lawmakers want to regulate the p2w market. EA game simply infringed existing regulation or should I more precisely say, a grey area of gambling regulation.

Furthermore, back at your own definition, you still have yet to reply my other posts, can you stop beating about the bush and come to term?

I don’t know if the English used could be plainer or simpler...

“Pay to win” is considered items you can only get through CASH that “give access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities”.

Paying for a server transfer does not give your characters access to personal stat buffs, special weapons or special capabilities...

Also, lawmakers are attempting to tackling various issues and topics...

1-RNG lootboxes.

2- Pay to win items.

3- Gambling Issues.

What you need to do is start doing your own research on google to inform yourself of the issues being raised. Yes, there are lawmakers who are trying to regulate online gaming to address gaming addiction, gambling addition and to counter the sense that online gamers, particularly younger children and teens, must spend cash to make sure their special character can progress or keep a competitive advantage... aka “pay to win”.

Read and absorb the words of others out there talking about the issues. It will help you understand what “pay to win” actually means outside of what you think it means, or what you are trying to apply the phrase to.

I have the same opinion on you. I don't know how english can be any simpler.

The article did not once define what p2w is. They only wrote what they think is p2w in that game. Whatever you wrote is your own definition, not what wrote on the article which is why you gave such a micro quoting.Again, they did not care about p2w. What they are concern of is the rng aspect of p2w.

Lastly, again, I ask you to reply my post which question about your p2w. Let me rephrase it in the way I understood your thinking.

Why do you not see items and options which can provide an advantage even if it is insignificant one, obtainable via monetary means (even if it can be grinded), a non p2w?Or maybe I should ask, why you don't even see it as a form of advantage?

Look up the topic and educate yourself. Read and absorb various articles on the matter to gain a clear understanding.

You are so wrong on many levels, literally, even the video in the article mentioned gambling numerous times and here you insist they care about p2w while the fact is, they only care about the random aspect of p2w.

Here, I quote video out for you, litereally. these are the authorities, literally. I am done with your interpretations.

How many times do I need to explain to you...

Look up various articles on the subject. Lawmakers are trying to tackle many different areas related to how mmos monitize their games.... The topic is multifaceted and you need to actually research... Not hard to look up articles and discussions and read...

You hade zero clue what you’re talking about here... I already provided a clear quote on what describes “pay to win”, you haven’t. All you’ve provided is what’s in your mind and of your own interpretation...

Funny you can’t even lay out exactly what a 1st place winner “wins” over a second or 3 winner, yet you want to make some argument about transfers being “pay to win”... if all you’ve got is “intangible assets” the you already lost.

You suppose to convince me so prove it.

Again, those quoted p2w definition is written by the author of article for the game involved, not by the authority.

Your entire argument at that point is still personal opinion, nothing concrete from so-called authority. Again, do not make up laws for your amusement.

@"Nate.3927" said:the problem with being on the extreme left by your definition is that the game has to be 100% free and nothing can be bought at all. It's like saying that poker tournaments are pay to win because you usually have to pay X amount to enter the tournament.

I mean I've seen someone claim that buying cosmetics in the gem store is pay to win.

Wrong. My definition doesn't mean game has to be free. My definition clearly state "over other players". This means that if every single player spent same amount of money to gain access to the game, it doesn't include "over other players". At that point, everything is still equal. However, if players can spend more money for additional benefits beyond accessing the game and that give them an advantage over other players, that is p2w.

Fefore every can play the tournaments, you have to pay first, If not, you cannot play. Therefore, everyone in that tournament is still equal. Unless you are telling me that the people in tournament has to play against people outside of the tournament?

The definition is quite simple, really.

You made up this this thread implying that the server transfer service is a “pay to win” option. Therefore, you are implying Anet is trying to scam customers out of money somehow.

You didn’t provide any rational info to back up your pay to win claim. You present zero facts for your case. You didn’t provide any burden of proof... It’s your job to present why server transfers in GW2 are indeed “pay to win”, and you clearly haven’t done that. You just want to argue although I provided an outside source that explains exactly what pay to win is... and a game company changing as a result.

It is at this point where I feel we need some extra rational input for this topic to clear up your misconceptions, and labeling server transfers as “pay to win”.. which implies that Anet offers a service to scam players of money... @"Gaile Gray.6029"

I put up your articles in another commununity, non-gw2 bias and here is what one said. Don't worry, I don't micro quote things like you, I quote the entire sentence, this is what the uni had me to do when writing thesis. We don't quote things out of context.

The lawmakers are most definitely focused on the gambling aspect, in that you pay x amount of money to get random items that may or may not help progress the game. However, it's the pay to win model that is encouraging people to buy those randomized loot crates in the first place.

It's not the pay to win model that's being targeted by lawmakers, it's the idea that you can continuously purchase randomized pay to win items with no limit.

Told ya, it is the gambling aspect but you insist is not. You insist p2w itself. Sigh.

I believe others already presented why they see servers transfer as p2w but to you, it doesn't consider as one, you want something more. It is quite clear as day that you normalized the p2w elements and accept it as it is thus don't view it as one. You don't see it as so even you are told so, is fine, we can agree to disagree. However, you have been more than once trying to discredit and attack the character of a individual, even defaming. Resorting to such is not what a respectable person will do. Honestly I do believe I can report you but I wouldn't resort to that, I would want to leave it as a example for others to see.

I really don't know how many more times you need this explained to you...

Despite costing $99.95 in Australia, Battlefront II also uses micro-transactions that allow players to pay real money for in-game "crystals". These can then be traded for advantages in the game's competitive multiplayer network.

“In exchange for paid crystals or for credits earned during game play, players can buy "crates" that randomly grant advantages.”“In response to growing attention, Electronic Arts announced that it has removed the micro transactions feature from Battlefront II.”

“This means that the option to purchase crystals in the game is now offline, and all progression will be earned through gameplay. The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date, only after we’ve made changes to the game.”

“purchase crystals in order to unlock ability upgrades and new characters”

”not only were microtransactions stripped out of a game like Battlefront 2, but it called into question the predatory practices of the entire industry.”“It’s encouraging purchases not just to look cool with skins, but to actually fight better with flat stat boosts.”

“EA has completely revamped Star Wars: Battlefront 2 as part of an effort to respond to longstanding player grievances and to remove the pay-to-win mechanics”“It just meant that players couldn’t literally buy their way to victory using real cash.”“With these new updates, which started going live this week, the entire progression process has been revamped. Star Cards, which give access to various buffs, weapons, or capabilities will only be earned through gameplay (you keep access to any Star Cards you already had). All heroes and hero ships are now unlocked from the start.”

PAY TO WIN ADVANTAGES EXPLAINED IN A SIMPLE MANNER“buffs, weapons, or capabilities”“ability upgrades”“stat boosts”

Oh, so now we back at p2w definition, you gave up on your lawmaker interpretation?

Fine, I will go along with it.

Like I have already mentioned, those are the p2w items subjected to the involved game, that itself shouldn't be used as a definition across board. All they did is explaining what are the p2w things in that game. Why not you show me another article not related to that game, tell me what are the p2w in that game and are they same as the your current choice of game? I can tell you they are not the same.

Your definition cannot be used across all games, is that really a definition?

I don’t know what the issue is here... so you’re not going to bother to read and learn about this topic and need me to do it all for you?

It’s pretty simple to find articles discussing that lawmakers are trying to regulate predatory practices by gaming companies...

I did my part, and took extra time to show you, but the rest is on you. And if you’re not going to bother to make an effort then oh well.

Wait, you still on the lawmaker topic. Seriously, I already put this up on another community and majority all said the focus is on gambling aspect of p2w. Why can't you accept that you over-interpreted it?

I am done with you, really. I sincerely advise you to post your said articles in a community of your choice and ask them if your interpretation is correct. I mean since you can't accept me telling you are wrong in your interpretation, if others tell you are wrong, maybe you could accept it.

@Vayne.8563 said:I think the divide in this thread comes from the fact taht some people see winning a week in WvW as winning. Thus pay to win. However, even people that don't play WvW at all win if your side wins, by that logic. It's not something that furthers your goals in the game, except for now, you might go faster with regards to certain rewards with pips. However, I could make an argument that I get more rewards when I'm hopelessly outnumbered and I get the outnumber buff and it's advantageous to be on the side that's going to lose. I've progressed myself more on weeks we were losing than when we were winning.

Thus the argument is further muddied. WvW has no personal leaderboard, so you never win. Your server does. Therefore, not pay to win.

Hey, you gave a refreshing example, one that others never thought of. I will give you a thumbs up for that.Here the thing, "winning" is subjective to every individual, depends on perspective. That is why my definition is so board which people claim is vague but isn't vague, it just comprise of everything, be it past or future, made possible via monetary means. The main advantage you gain here is "saving time" over the need to farm. Having more time than others is already an advantage, we don't even need to go to subject like is it a winning server or having more rewards and what's not.

I am sure plenty of people thought of this, "it would be nice if we have more than 24 hours a day". Having more time simply open a door to lots of opportunities, everything that happened is just the direct or indirect product of the time saved which is what the opportunities here refers to. There were studies made on how people used their time on average. Do you know what big pile of life we spent on (other than sleeping)? Transport aka travelling. Just imagine how much things we could do if we cut the time spent on that.

If the transfer is not via "gems" but instead through a currency which literally require one to farm for it. I can assure you that WvW will be very different today.

Even with what you're saying, can you say with certainty that a winning server will progress someone faster than another server that gets more pips for being outnumbered? It might be a time saver to be on a server that doesn't win, in order to progress faster.

The thing here is you still fixated on comparing unfair factors between two individual. Also particularly fixture on "winning" in literally meaning when I did say it is subject to individuals. But I too can give you a different example but fairer which make equal sense.Two person want to transfer to a underpopulated server for more pips. - (You see common goals, fair. This can be any contexts you see, as long both comparison share the same thing.)One person has to farm for golds to transfer, the other person spend to move. - (The only one different thing they do)Which person save more time in the end? - (This can be any question but it also can be as simple as "Results". I just choose to ask because it might be easier for some to understand)(You will understand context don't really matter, even if you put 9999 different contexts, as long you compare only one different thing they do which in this case is spending or farming for transfer, you know the one that spend has advantage. No matter how hard you try to discredit it, you just can't find it.)

The thing is just because there is a few failure examples doesn't mean others cannot come up with successful examples. It doesn't make a advantage any less of a advantage.

This is like science, do you think that when scientist try to prove certain factor matters or not matters, they put two different comparison of many different factors? Of course they don't. That's not a controlled sample. They only want to compare one thing.

Of course, this doesn't mean there are no people transferring for own perspective of winning, like winning matchup, winning fights, whatever. The point here if one try compare things with unfair examples of multiple factors, you are not trying to argue down that one factor is not a p2w, you are just trying to overshadow that factor with other factors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vayne.8563

Vayne.8563

Posted
Posted

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:I disagree with your assessement.

I have so many questions just on this part alone.

Which part do you disagree with? That WvW is a team based game mode? Are you saying that winning the matchup isn't how one actually wins in WvW? If so, how does one actually win in WvW? Are you saying no one really wins? If so how do you explain all the bandwagoning and server stacking and fairweathering over the years before during and after seasons and the fact that certain servers have had to be manually kept closed to keep people from flocking there? Do you think all that behavior has been a random series of bizarre coincidences?

When the game launched, it was closer to true, because winning in WvW gave you specific buffs which Anet has removed from the game. But in PvP, you only win by participating and perhaps getting carried by your team. There's a definite plus to winning. There's also a leaderboard. There's a ladder. There's ranking. That just doesn't exist in WvW. You're taking the broadest sense of win and trying to apply it to pay to win. WvW isn't set up that way. Winning is amorphous.

Your original definition of "pay to win" as "purchasing personal power from a cash shop" makes no mention of what specifically constitutes "winning," what one must win for "winning" or that purchasing "personal power" must give any sort of competitive advantage at all. What definition are you basing all these extra qualifying conditions on?

Would you say your full definition of "pay to win" would be something like "purchasing personal power from a cash shop that gives a demonstrable competitive advantage against other players that ultimately leads to some sort of greater material benefit in game?"

I simply can't agree with your definition of "winning".

What is your definition of "winning" in the context of WvW?

In most competitive game modes where there is winnning, there is also a leaderboard of some kind or some kind of rankings. Notice this exists for SPvP. It doesn't exist for WvW. There are SERVER rankings. Servers win or lose. You don't.

By your logic, if a person who NEVER set foot in WvW's server won, they would have won WvW because their server won. And at launch this could have even been considered true to a lesser degree, because there was a tangible benefit to winning with regards to server wide buffs which have been removed from the game. The fact is, servers can win, but there are tons and tons of people on those servers who never participate or only participate minimally.

By contrast, in order to win in SPVP you have to actually play PvP. The server thing was never meant to be a balanced competitive mode and it never has been. I'd consider winning if I go out and accomplish my objectives. After all each match lasts an entire week. I could hardly take credit for winning because I can't even be involved 24 hours a day seven days a week. Very often the side with the most coverage off hours is going to win.

Some people have made winning a thing in their heads, and that's fine. But it was designed as more of an open world area for people to fight. Everyone is making progress. Everyone is getting the same rewards, there's no leaderboard.

Your server winning <> you winning, unless you claim that people who never set foot in WvW win when their server wins which is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Israel.7056

Israel.7056

Posted
Posted

@"Vayne.8563" said:In most competitive game modes where there is winnning, there is also a leaderboard of some kind or some kind of rankings. Notice this exists for SPvP. It doesn't exist for WvW. There are SERVER rankings. Servers win or lose. You don't.

By your logic, if a person who NEVER set foot in WvW's server won, they would have won WvW because their server won. And at launch this could have even been considered true to a lesser degree, because there was a tangible benefit to winning with regards to server wide buffs which have been removed from the game. The fact is, servers can win, but there are tons and tons of people on those servers who never participate or only participate minimally.

By contrast, in order to win in SPVP you have to actually play PvP. The server thing was never meant to be a balanced competitive mode and it never has been. I'd consider winning if I go out and accomplish my objectives. After all each match lasts an entire week. I could hardly take credit for winning because I can't even be involved 24 hours a day seven days a week. Very often the side with the most coverage off hours is going to win.

Some people have made winning a thing in their heads, and that's fine. But it was designed as more of an open world area for people to fight. Everyone is making progress. Everyone is getting the same rewards, there's no leaderboard.

Your server winning <> you winning, unless you claim that people who never set foot in WvW win when their server wins which is ludicrous.

So just to be clear here, I want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Your argument is that GW2 WvW can't be said to have pay to win in it not just because winning doesn't win players anything you personally see as sufficiently valuable but also because no one individual can ever be said to have ever actually won the game except insofar as they have accomplished their "own objectives" because the game mode doesn't have individual leaderboards?

So could we say your definition of "pay to win" could be stated as "personal power from a cash shop that gives players a competitive advantage against other players that leads to a greater material benefit in the game and exists in a game mode where the winners and losers are clearly individually distinguished and codified in some sort of leaderboard or individual ranking system even if it's is a team based game mode with a team based scoring system?" Does that sound right to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vayne.8563

Vayne.8563

Posted
Posted

@Israel.7056 said:

@"Vayne.8563" said:In most competitive game modes where there is winnning, there is also a leaderboard of some kind or some kind of rankings. Notice this exists for SPvP. It doesn't exist for WvW. There are SERVER rankings. Servers win or lose. You don't.

By your logic, if a person who NEVER set foot in WvW's server won, they would have won WvW because their server won. And at launch this could have even been considered true to a lesser degree, because there was a tangible benefit to winning with regards to server wide buffs which have been removed from the game. The fact is, servers can win, but there are tons and tons of people on those servers who never participate or only participate minimally.

By contrast, in order to win in SPVP you have to actually play PvP. The server thing was never meant to be a balanced competitive mode and it never has been. I'd consider winning if I go out and accomplish my objectives. After all each match lasts an entire week. I could hardly take credit for winning because I can't even be involved 24 hours a day seven days a week. Very often the side with the most coverage off hours is going to win.

Some people have made winning a thing in their heads, and that's fine. But it was designed as more of an open world area for people to fight. Everyone is making progress. Everyone is getting the same rewards, there's no leaderboard.

Your server winning <> you winning, unless you claim that people who never set foot in WvW win when their server wins which is ludicrous.

So just to be clear here, I want to make sure I'm reading this right.

Your argument is that GW2 WvW can't be said to have pay to win in it not just because winning doesn't win players anything you personally see as sufficiently valuable but also because no one individual can ever be said to have ever actually won the game except insofar as they have accomplished their "own objectives" because the game mode doesn't have individual leaderboards?

So could we say your definition of "pay to win" could be stated as "personal power from a cash shop that gives players a competitive advantage against other players that leads to a greater material benefit in the game and exists in a game mode where the winners and losers are clearly individually distinguished and codified in some sort of leaderboard or individual ranking system even if it's is a team based game mode with a team based scoring system?" Does that sound right to you?

I'm saying WvW is not a personal win. Your personal power doesn't particularly contribute to the win of your side. It was not meant to be balanced that way. Some people in that mode are leveling. Some people in that mode are casual PvEers. Some people in that mode are there just for a Gift of Battle. It's always the luck of the draw, including what server you were on and what guilds came and left that server. It wasn't meant to be competitive in the way you're spinning it. It's what you want it to be, but it's not the way it was intended by the devs according to the devs. It was really supposed to be where open world PvP in Guild Wars 2 happened.

You can agree or you can disagree, but nothing the devs have ever said will contradict this. It wasn't meant to be balanced. Your own efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to win. It's not like you can carry a team in 5v5. It was just a giant hodgepodge of circumstance where winning wasn't a personal victory it was a server victory and yes, I stand behind that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

There is nothing wrong with pay to win nor transferring. The one problem of wvw is simple population imbalance. That's just it. How this should be handled is wvw should remain the same, and another mode where wvw is ala pvp, where a group ques up and fights for 2 hours or so. And those be tallied per guild/alliance. Outside of that, it will never be fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strider Pj.2193

Strider Pj.2193

Posted
Posted

@Sovereign.1093 said:There is nothing wrong with pay to win nor transferring. The one problem of wvw is simple population imbalance. That's just it. How this should be handled is wvw should remain the same, and another mode where wvw is ala pvp, where a group ques up and fights for 2 hours or so. And those be tallied per guild/alliance. Outside of that, it will never be fair.

‘A group queues up’

How many? 20? 30? 10?

Or alliance size of 500?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkyShroud.2865

SkyShroud.2865

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@"Sovereign.1093" said:There is nothing wrong with pay to win nor transferring. The one problem of wvw is simple population imbalance. That's just it. How this should be handled is wvw should remain the same, and another mode where wvw is ala pvp, where a group ques up and fights for 2 hours or so. And those be tallied per guild/alliance. Outside of that, it will never be fair.

But the topic isn't about population imbalance. It isn't even about transfer is right or wrong. It is about whether or not spending to transfer is p2w. Whether or not people actually realize it is p2w. So far, the arguments gave are quite amusing but not quite sound since the arguments can have two different sides which thus cannot justify it as it isn't p2w.

Why do we not call cosmetic product p2w? It simply because it doesn't put players ahead of other players. Even if we try really hard to justify it can put one ahead of others, we jsut can't find it, there is a common understanding to derive to this conclusion.

There is a concrete advantage when spending than farming for transfer which basically the amount of time you saved doing so. If we use a extreme case, that advantage can possibility have a large impact.

Saving time is undeniable advantage, using grind game as extreme example, if you are ahead of others by dozen of hours through spending, you are already considered p2w. This too can be apply for transfer and if we use extreme case of people sponsoring dozen or more people for transfer, just how much time did one saved there? Just how much impact does this "saved time" cause? Just how far ahead the players are?

Edit: To addon, I also forgot to mention how people argue subjectively about "winning" Who say winning cannot be used relatively? If there are two groups of players trying to transfer to the same server. The first group spend to transfer and then the server become full or raise in cost, doesn't that mean the first group won the second group in that aspect? Do you notice some similarity in this example with my other examples throughout the different posts? It is no different from "advantage". It all depends on your perspective and from what view you are looking from. There are many opportunities gain from just this one advantage. Transfer really is p2w.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

transfer is a pay to win option if u use real money to buy gems to build on a stacked server.

and thats ok. if my guild wanted that wed transfer too. but i am a contrarian, i want to fight those who are many even if we are few. not as often as i want not though cause change of priorities but still.

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sovereign.1093

Sovereign.1093

Posted
Posted

transfer is a pay to win option if u use real money to buy gems to build on a stacked server.

and thats ok. if my guild wanted that wed transfer too. but i am a contrarian, i want to fight those who are many even if we are few. not as often as i want not though cause change of priorities but still.

=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
GuildWars2.com
ArenaNet

©2020 ArenaNet, LLC. All rights reserved. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

ESRB - Teen
×
×
  • Create New...