Fashion wars is becoming unblanced.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

The term "Pay to Win" has a meaning. It means, pay for a significant numerical advantage in fighting other players that is either not available via play or is available via play but only through extremely lengthy and difficult means. In pay-to-win, a player is paying to be able to beat other players in combat. At least in the west, this practice is reviled because it is a form of cheating sanctioned by the game developer. That means the term has very negative connotations.

Attempts to stretch the term to fit a different circumstance are attempts to cash in on that negative connotation as a way to build agreement and put pressure on a game developer to change their practices. Stretching such terms to cash in on the negativity is as empty of value -- to me -- as would be cheating in PvP, via pay-to-win or any other cheats.

Complain about the cash shop all you like. Try to build agreement that there ought to be more rewards in game all you like. I'll agree with you. However, try to manipulate me into thinking something is like something else that it is manifestly not like, and I will believe you are being dishonest and will not support your position.

[Aeolus.3615]

@kharmin.7683

Thats a very realistic way to put it, nothing to win...

Game lacks depth, it’s to much superficial indeed.

[Diak Atoli.2085]

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:The term "Pay to Win" has a meaning. It means, pay for a significant numerical advantage in fighting other players that is either not available via play or is available via play but only through extremely lengthy and difficult means.

It would probably be more accurate to say 'when competing against other players,' but that's just semantics. ;)

Either way, I agree with your post.

[Zexanima.7851]

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:The term "Pay to Win" has a meaning. It means, pay for a significant numerical advantage in fighting other players that is either not available via play or is available via play but only through extremely lengthy and difficult means. In pay-to-win, a player is paying to be able to beat other players in combat. At least in the west, this practice is reviled because it is a form of cheating sanctioned by the game developer. That means the term has very negative connotations.

Attempts to stretch the term to fit a different circumstance are attempts to cash in on that negative connotation as a way to build agreement and put pressure on a game developer to change their practices. Stretching such terms to cash in on the negativity is as empty of value -- to me -- as would be cheating in PvP, via pay-to-win or any other cheats.

Complain about the cash shop all you like. Try to build agreement that there ought to be more rewards in game all you like. I'll agree with you. However, try to manipulate me into thinking something is like something else that it is manifestly not like, and I will believe you are being dishonest and will not support your position.

Well, curse me for trying to use effect means of persuasion. I guess I've been had. As for being dishonest all I have to so is...no u.

I'm not trying to stretch anything. A part of the end game is cosmetics. It's not a plus, extra, nice fancy addition but is stated as goal of the game as you play it. Imagine having a barbie game on my phone where I earn cloths by playing some mini game but then I can purchase just as good or better cloths from their cash shop. It's circumventing the mechanics, it's using the same cheap tactics. You're not wrong though, it doesn't cookie cutter fit the textbook definition of what 'pay-to-win' is and that's why I state it as a question and draw parallels and not straight up state it as 'ARG THIS IS P2W'. Implying someone is dishonest when they obviously not trying to be, for what reason I'm not sure, is just rude af.

[CETheLucid.3964]

The gem store is an optional faster route to point B from point A and looking pretty. Howl and cry as some of the more impassioned 'critics' might, there's actually quite a lot of skins in the game already that require no gem store purchases.

They are adding more as recently as this last release. They added more in their releases prior in the immediate past.

Nothing you can buy in the gem store gives you a mechanical advantage in the game that can't be achieved by simply playing the game. This is how it should be. This is an old tired argument.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Where is it stated that 'fashion wars' is the goal of the game other than in the forums and such. I don't think I've ever seen the Devs state that that was the end-game. I'd love to see that quote, though. Please do provide it.

[Zexanima.7851]

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:Where is it stated that 'fashion wars' is the goal of the game other than in the forums and such. I don't think I've ever seen the Devs state that that was the end-game. I'd love to see that quote, though. Please do provide it.

Why tf can I not have a nice conversation on these forums without everyone getting all uptight and passive aggressive bout everything.It's not stated as the sole goal, but it is a gole. Here. Provided for you my liege https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Endgame

[Azure The Heartless.3261]

Who let you out of the pvp forums there's still more pointless arguing to do-

What I'd like to add is that, even if you attempt to expand the definition of "pay to win" to "pay to have a flashier outfit or weapon set than others and thereby gain the illusion of a higher social standing", even that argument no longer works for GW2. Between the gemstore gold to gems conversion rate, the flashiest of all armors and weapons being locked (largely) through heavy PvE or WvW or PvP involvement, and the saturation of Black Lion weapon skins causing most of them to be relatively inexpensive goldwise, there's really no major paywall for just making your character look good.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

That's cool, but written by a player and not a statement from the Devs.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Main_Page

[Zexanima.7851]

@"Azure The Heartless.3261" said:Who let you out of the pvp forums there's still more pointless arguing to do-

What I'd like to add is that, even if you attempt to expand the definition of "pay to win" to "pay to have a flashier outfit or weapon set than others and thereby gain the illusion of a higher social standing", even that argument no longer works for GW2. Between the gemstore gold to gems conversion rate, the flashiest of all armors and weapons being locked (largely) through heavy PvE or WvW or PvP involvement, and the saturation of Black Lion weapon skins causing most of them to be relatively inexpensive goldwise, there's really no major paywall for just making your character look good.

Take me back! These people want to pelt me with semantics like it's a presidential debate for world ruler or something. At least in the PvP forums I have hard numbers to hide behind.

Hmm. I suppose I could have choose something better to relate this problem too other that P2W, but clickbait ya know. If I had to frame it as clearly as I could

"Providing buyable skins that become on par with skins locked behind in game rewards invalidates the player effort required to obtain those in-game skins. This also chips away at the idea of prestige in the game as form of a progression ladder and curbs the idea of 'fashion' as a form of accomplishment."

[Zexanima.7851]

@"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:That's cool, but written by a player and not a statement from the Devs.

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Main_Page

Oh dang, I didn't know. You got me, I've been had. Dude, everyone and there mother nicknames the game "Fashion Wars" and if that was written by a player or not it's what the game has evolved into.

[kharmin.7683]

If fashion is the end game "win" goal, then it is something which is highly subjective. With no tangible way to discern where some player wins and all other players lose, your premise is faulty.

Maybe you can answer this for us then? What is it that you hope to accomplish with your argument? What is the persuasion or change that you want implemented that will prevent this pay to win scenario of yours?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a kitten but I really don't understand your point or what you hope to accomplish with this thread.

[b k.1648]

The "fashion wars" thing is a joke. You don't actually win by being more stylish.

If you have to move the goalposts for the argument to make sense, it's not much of an argument.

[Zexanima.7851]

@"kharmin.7683" said:If fashion is the end game "win" goal, then it is something which is highly subjective. With no tangible way to discern where some player wins and all other players lose, your premise is faulty.

Maybe you can answer this for us then? What is it that you hope to accomplish with your argument? What is the persuasion or change that you want implemented that will prevent this pay to win scenario of yours?

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a kitten but I really don't understand your point or what you hope to accomplish with this thread.

"Providing buyable skins that become on par with skins locked behind in game rewards invalidates the player effort required to obtain those in-game skins. This also chips away at the idea of prestige in the game as form of a progression ladder and curbs the idea of 'fashion' as a form of accomplishment."

There, that is a better way to word it. ^

[Zexanima.7851]

@"Ben K.6238" said:The "fashion wars" thing is a joke. You don't actually win by being more stylish.

If you have to move the goalposts for the argument to make sense, it's not much of an argument.

I'm not trying to argue or convince anyone of anything. Do you see me wearing a suit and standing on a stage trying to convince you to vote for me instead of the other guy because he's had an affair with multiple mistresses? No, this isn't a presidential debate, it's a forum discussion. Here is my refactored argument:

"Providing buyable skins that become on par with skins locked behind in game rewards invalidates the player effort required to obtain those in-game skins. This also chips away at the idea of prestige in the game as form of a progression ladder and curbs the idea of 'fashion' as a form of accomplishment."

[b k.1648]

You sure seem remarkably fixated on this GW2 being pay-to-win thing for someone who's not trying to convince anyone of anything.

[kharmin.7683]

Thanks, but that is not pay to win. Maybe you should re-title your thread to address your concern/complaint about the way in which skins are obtained.

Someone could deck their toon out in all of the flashiest skins available from the gem store, but does that make them a winner? Not to me. I detest those kinds of skins. Someone else could deck their toon out in a really solid cosplay, but does that make them a winner? Not to me. I applaud their efforts, and sometimes appreciate the thought and work put into the cosplay. But that doesn't mean they "won" GW2 and I lost. This is the problem that I have with the premise of this thread.

[Cyninja.2954]

@"IndigoSundown.5419" said:The term "Pay to Win" has a meaning. It means, pay for a significant numerical advantage in fighting other players that is either not available via play or is available via play but only through extremely lengthy and difficult means. In pay-to-win, a player is paying to be able to beat other players in combat. At least in the west, this practice is reviled because it is a form of cheating sanctioned by the game developer. That means the term has very negative connotations.

Attempts to stretch the term to fit a different circumstance are attempts to cash in on that negative connotation as a way to build agreement and put pressure on a game developer to change their practices. Stretching such terms to cash in on the negativity is as empty of value -- to me -- as would be cheating in PvP, via pay-to-win or any other cheats.

Complain about the cash shop all you like. Try to build agreement that there ought to be more rewards in game all you like. I'll agree with you. However, try to manipulate me into thinking something is like something else that it is manifestly not like, and I will believe you are being dishonest and will not support your position.

This.

[Zexanima.7851]

@Ben K.6238 said:You sure seem remarkably fixated on this GW2 being pay-to-win thing for someone who's not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Ffs everyone else keeps fixating on it and I'm just using to draw an easy to understand parallel between what is happing. Making me pull my hair out here...

[Zexanima.7851]

@"kharmin.7683" said:Thanks, but that is not pay to win. Maybe you should re-title your thread to address your concern/complaint about the way in which skins are obtained.

Someone could deck their toon out in all of the flashiest skins available from the gem store, but does that make them a winner? Not to me. I detest those kinds of skins. Someone else could deck their toon out in a really solid cosplay, but does that make them a winner? Not to me. I applaud their efforts, and sometimes appreciate the thought and work put into the cosplay. But that doesn't mean they "won" GW2 and I lost. This is the problem that I have with the premise of this thread.

I was doing it before you even posted this.

[Blude.6812]

@Zexanima.7851 said:

@"kharmin.7683" said:That's what I don't get. You don't want to necro older threads that have already covered these topics and then create a new one that doesn't add anything new to those discussions anyway.

Idk what to tell ya mate. I'm sitting at work with nothing to do and was thinking about this so I figured I would see if anyone wanted to discuss it. You're welcome to pay no mind and not comment if it bothers you that much. Every time I want to talk about something I don't go "Oh, better go digging through the bowels of the forums to make sure someone else hasn't already discussed this before. Far be it from me if I accidentally bring up a conversation had before". Some new may come of it yet, it's not like the discussion is closed. That's why you

discus

it with other people to figure out

new

ideas. Maybe someone who didn't see the older threads will chime in, who knows.

Nah, I bet you have likely been around long enough to know that mods close and end necro'd threads. This is one of the ways people have used to purposly get around that. "Accidents" ???? nah. (discuss)

[Zexanima.7851]

@Blude.6812 said:

@Zexanima.7851 said:

@"kharmin.7683" said:That's what I don't get. You don't want to necro older threads that have already covered these topics and then create a new one that doesn't add anything new to those discussions anyway.

Idk what to tell ya mate. I'm sitting at work with nothing to do and was thinking about this so I figured I would see if anyone wanted to discuss it. You're welcome to pay no mind and not comment if it bothers you that much. Every time I want to talk about something I don't go "Oh, better go digging through the bowels of the forums to make sure someone else hasn't already discussed this before. Far be it from me if I accidentally bring up a conversation had before". Some new may come of it yet, it's not like the discussion is closed. That's why you

discus

it with other people to figure out

new

ideas. Maybe someone who didn't see the older threads will chime in, who knows.

Nah, I bet you have likely been around long enough to know that mods close and end necro'd threads. This is one of the ways people have used to purposly get around that. "Accidents" ???? nah. (discuss)

Idk what the mods do, you think I read forum rules and crap like that? I just come here mostly to complain about pvp/wvw bs. I think everyone is mistaking my being lazy and bored for me trying to be deceptive and tricky some how.

[ZDragon.3046]

@Zexanima.7851 said:

@"Dante.1763" said:You can just buy gen 2 legendaries as well. Sure you still have to make the thing, but outside of OBI shards everything else can be purchased with gold or gems.

That's a good point, you can buy a lot of the difficulty away from them.

To be fair work is work is how i see it so long as the player still worked to obtain said item i dont see the difference. They just chose to go about a it in a different method. Regardless that method still requires hours on hours of play time to produce the gold required to out right do that so im not so sure i see an issue with it.

I got my first legendary (Howler) by saving the gold which took months of play time (few hours a day) to accomplish. This method at my rate of speed was longer than it would take to probably out right do the collections and what not on your own but let me skip a lot of stuff between i really really REALLY didn't want to do and it let me go about it at my own speed without constantly thinking about it. IT was far more chill for me to do it that way.Ive seen people sweat about legendaries every day they play cause they are so close yet so far or they forget something they need and get delayed by another week or so and it just looks like it really made the game experience more frustrating than good.

Everyone is different so long as it requires work and play time i take no issue with having different methods to unlock an end game goal.

Im not sure its fair to assume that just because some one takes a different path its wise to assume the path is less difficult someone might find just farming the gold and buying the difficulty away is actually more difficult and more painful than doing it the "normal" or "old fashioned" way.

[b k.1648]

When the parallel is something that's been debated frequently in past, on the most specious of pretenses, it does tend to become distracting in the "lol this again" kind of way. If this is specifically a discussion about how cosmetics should be available, not whether they qualify as power progression, it's a much more sensible one.

So, on to this:

@"Zexanima.7851" said:"Providing buyable skins that become on par with skins locked behind in game rewards invalidates the player effort required to obtain those in-game skins. This also chips away at the idea of prestige in the game as form of a progression ladder and curbs the idea of 'fashion' as a form of accomplishment."

If visual appearance is intended to be a form of prestige, the gem store would indeed invalidate a whole lot of things that require in-game achievement. It looks like ANet are broadly OK with this - visuals don't help you win, so the gem store gives you all sorts of visuals.But they do seem to make a couple of exceptions at the moment for infusions and armour skins. There are a few old armour skins on the gem store, but lately they're just doing outfits there, leaving 6-piece armour sets for in-game rewards.

Whether the best/most customizable/flashiest skins should be restricted to in-game achievements is tricky though. At the moment, that's just legendaries and legendary armour. Personally, I don't use legendary skins much because there are other skins I like more.The problem is, if the skins on the gem store weren't as nice as the best stuff you could acquire by playing, there'll be a whole lot less people who'll pay for them. There's a substantial risk of the reverse happening too, if all the best skins are on the gem store so there's nothing worthwhile to acquire by playing.

What it seems ANet are trying to do is provide different types of skins on each, so you can't get the legendary VFX by just buying gem store skins, and you can't get a fancy-looking mount by just playing a lot of raids (excluding the gold-to-gems conversion of course). I'm not sure how successful they've been at keeping the in-game achievements distinctive, but given that it doesn't affect gameplay they seem to be OK with blurring the lines a bit.

[Raknar.4735]

@"Zexanima.7851" said:Screw me for drawing parallels I guess. Here is my refactored argument:

"Providing buyable skins that become on par with skins locked behind in game rewards invalidates the player effort required to obtain those in-game skins. This also chips away at the idea of prestige in the game as form of a progression ladder and curbs the idea of 'fashion' as a form of accomplishment."

You're implying that "fashion" can only be accomplished if you're using expensive or "prestige" skins. That's just not true. Flashy =/= good looking/fashionable.