Latest CG, the clearest example of P2W in ED to date?

[Rat Catcher]

And of course nobody is going to say they bought the ship for P2W reasons.

Well, of course they won't, if, like me, they have bought all the previous ships got Arx, they have won the entire game 6 times already...

Still able to haul a lot more cargo in the same time, so that's a lot more profit per hour.

Apart from me, folk here often insist credits are meaningless, so the argument is lost already...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I certainly can't deny you'r point that between release and now, things have certainly got a lot more 'pay to win'-ey. That's a bar rising from absolute zero to 'just a little bit', but of course that is an increase in P2Wness of infinity%, which sounds pretty high Statistical manipulation aside, I get your point, but I say it's less about being pay to win and more about manipulating the customer. It really does take very little effort to hit these CGs to 75%, even the busy ones lately, it's still not hard, but yes, this is a slightly profanely obvious cash grab by FD to offer a hauling CG after putting on sale the biggest hauler in the game ever, for only money, yes, that's not sus or manipulative of the players at all.

I hope this is as P2W-ey as it gets cos it's right on the edge imo, but not yet crossed the line, just very cheeky business practice. It's like inventing a new bug spray then dropping a plane full of mosquitoes on the town.

Ah, you make a point similar to what Josh Strife Hayes made in a video on P2W. That its not black and white but a sliding scale.

That's one reason is said "clearest example to date" as a comparative, because there have been other things that have caused people to say ED is P2W. Engineering being locked behind the Horizons DLC was perhaps one of the first things to get some people to call it P2W. Certainly in terms of PvP it was P2W, but a whole DLC is harder to point at and say P2W when almost everyone will buy it anyway for the new content. If Horizons had just been engineering only, then it would have been clearly P2W.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yebbut you could've been earning and saving weekly Arc from a year ago onwards. Did you know that you can also get Arx playing on Legacy, so essentially 800 per week instead of 400?

Or, i could have been spending my earned ARX on other things instead, or maybe i did save and spent my ARX on a different early access ship (I didn't, it mainly went on paintjobs and ship kits).

We've had 5 EA ships over the last year or so, which is close to 5 years of gameplay required, with more EA ships to come.

Also, sorry, but i have time to play one version of the game only, not booting into legacy just to spend time to earn more ARX.

 

[rootsrat]

That's where we get into the quibble about what is P2W. Isn't P2A a form of P2W?

I'd say it depends on context, which is often omitted in these discussions. Some things are not universal. P2W is one of them.

There is no "win" really in this CG. Nobody can lose, everyone will get all of the available rewards. Some will get two same rewards.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Apart from me, folk here often insist credits are meaningless, so the argument is lost already...

Credits have lost a lot of their meaning over the years but not entirely. We also need to see how much these new Vanguard carriers are going to cost... i'm a little scared by that!

As noted though, its not just credits, there are the additional cargo racks, and so far, only available by this CG, not for credits.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'd say it depends on context, which is often omitted in these discussions. Some things are not universal. P2W is one of them.

There is no "win" really in this CG. Nobody can lose, everyone will get all of the available rewards. Some will get two same rewards.

Winning credits, winning cargo racks? Maybe call it earning instead, sure. Those who opened their wallets have a clear advantage over those who don't though.

 

[kofeyh]

As noted though, its not just credits, there are the additional cargo racks, and so far, only available by this CG, not for credits.

And anyone can deliver a single unit of cargo to secure the first two. That's doable in a sidewinder.

We've had 5 EA ships over the last year or so, which is close to 5 years of gameplay required, with more EA ships to come.

But the same ships are then released, in-game, after about 3 months. Why do you keep stating that people have to spend years earning the Arx (as apparently 'required') for ships that are purchasable in game after a few months?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sure. We've had CGs for about 10 years now, so I'm sure this one is clearly different.

Irrelevant in the context. EA ships have only been a thing for the last year, and correct me if i'm wrong, but this is the first time progress in a CG is so closely linked with an advantage given by an EA ship during the EA period.

I wouldn't call it "massive profits" per-se. But sure, let's go with it being a profitable CG as have just about all of them prior.

Its not just the CG reward, there is a huge per unit profit, prices have been set at 10x their regular price for the CG. People can make bank off this CG.

And you'll be able to buy it in game in a lot shorter time than you can earn it, via monthly arx gain. So it's not a year. It's a few months. Like all the other ships have been.

Part of my point really. They did this CG during the EA phase, before its available for credits.

1238 - 794 = 444 in the case of the Cutter (which still exists); that's about 55%. Where is the 2x coming from? The cargo difference between Type-9 and Cutter is trivial. I didn't think you were one to embellish?

Yeah, slight exaggeration, but the point still stands i think. Its still a huge time saver.

The single biggest factor in CG progress for any commander, is time and it's disingenuous to pretend the majority of players have the same amount to invest, in order to make a point that that isn't a factor if we just pretend it isn't and we also pretend Carriers don't exist either. The argument of "if we just assume all other metrics are the same, when they aren't, then it's not fair" is not really the winning argument it sounds.

When talking about P2W we have to compare two identical people otherwise we start getting into silly discussions about how someone could get into the top 75% by delivering goods in a Vulture. Same if we are discussing P2W in terms of combat ships, you see these arguments on the Star Citizen fourms somtimes about how a good pilot in a poor ship they earned would still beat a poor pilot in a better paid for ship - its a stupid argument. If the poor pilot could beat the better pilot then it just makes the extent of P2W worse, it doesn't mean its not P2W at all.

The CG outcome will be the same as every other CG given the same factor is at play for each - time - time is the biggest factor. Always will be.

Only if you dismiss the point about comparing like for like players, which you did. Simplify it - there's just 2 people in the CG, me and CMDR Thrust, but he got the PC and I didn't, because i didn't open my wallet. We have the same amount of time to play each week. CMDR Thrust beats me by a significant margin and gets the extra cargo racks, i don't, and he also earns way more credits.

Look, I will defend your position on not spending Arx until they put me in a wooden box and shove me underground; everyone can make that choice and absolutely has the right to do so. But it is a choice, and pretending it's somehow not, because of a single CG, is a pretty weak argument.

Of course everyone has a choice and if someone wants to open their wallet, that's their choice. The whole discussion about whether EA ships or even pre-built ships are P2W is a whole topic. My point here is whether this CG in conjunction with the release of the PC is the clearest example of P2W to date.

No matter where you stand on the whole issue of whether EA ships are a form of P2W, the question remains if this CG highlights the issue (unless of course someone is adamant there is no P2W element in FD selling ships for real money, which I find a really untenable position).

Still, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of the wider issue here, that discussion was done to death when FD first introduced paid for ships, I want to specifically focus on the CG as an example.

 

[rootsrat]

Winning credits, winning cargo racks? Maybe call it earning instead, sure. Those who opened their wallets have a clear advantage over those who don't though.

Winning Credits and cargo racks, yes. Every single person that will take part in the CG will win both.

Most (75%) will get an extra set of cargo racks. Others will get proportionally more Credits. Nobody will lose per se.

But you're missing the context again. Earning Credits is extremely easy in Elite currently and the 1 more set of cargo racks really isn't going to make that much of a difference in practise to anyone.

If we want to take things out of context, then the entire game is Pay2Win, as those who only bought the game yesterday have an extreme disadvantage over anyone who bought the game a week ago. What about me, who plays since beta, so even before the game was released? Surely it's P2W if I could learn the skills required to play the game before the people that got it on release? But oh wait, there were people playing the game since alpha, so even before me!

Do we want to do a full reset of the game for every sale of Elite Dangerous (and separately for Odyssey DLC), to give everyone perfectly equal chance of competing in every aspect of the game? Come on. That's where going out of context takes you - into ridiculous, dramatic, unobjective and, frankly silly, conclusions.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

And anyone can deliver a single unit of cargo to secure the first two. That's doable in a sidewinder.

That's not part of my argument.

But the same ships are then released, in-game, after about 3 months. Why do you keep stating that people have to spend years earning the Arx (as apparently 'required') for ships that are purchasable in game after a few months?

I'm not saying they have to spend years earning the ARX, i'm saying its impossible (unless they are lucky to have enough saved) to buy it during this CG.

Its the CG coming while the PC is still in EA, therefore requiring (most people) to open their wallets to have the biggest rewards from this CG.

If they had done this CG a month ago or in 3 months (whenever it becomes available for credits), then this topic wouldn't have been a thing.

 

[kofeyh]

Still, I don't want to go too far down the rabbit hole of the wider issue here, that discussion was done to death when FD first introduced paid for ships, I want to specifically focus on the CG as an example.

The genie was already out of the bottle when the first Arx ship arrived. It would be difficult to put back in, it would cost Frontier in lost sales, and a reduced player count. I want Frontier to be sensible, yes. But I also want them to thrive and continue to develop the game we all clearly love (there would not be such debates had we not).

As for making bank, in the time it took me to get half-a-billion, I could have earned much the same scanning plants...

 

[SteveWW57]

1 ton gets you one of each rack, so the issue is who gets two of each, those managing to get in the top 75%. Some CMDRs will not be bothered about getting into the top 75%, so will push up others rather than pushing them down.

If 1 in 4 CMDRs has an alt they only want to get in on the act, then that pushes others up. With the cost of the game being so cheap, I suspect that there are a lot of alts out there.

Being frugal with my arx, buying the cheap paint jobs etc when they were cheap etc, means I have saved up enough arx from playing to get the PC2 early if I want to. But I see no need as I am likely to get into the top 75% with modest effort.

 

[anShpan]

Regardless, the mechanics of the situation seem to speak for themselves.

To me, subjectively, it seems more like someone trying to speak for the mechanics of the situation.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Winning Credits and cargo racks, yes. Every single person that will take part in the CG will win both.

Most (75%) will get an extra set of cargo racks. Others will get proportionally more Credits. Nobody will lose per se.

But you're missing the context again. Earning Credits is extremely easy in Elite currently and the 1 more set of cargo racks really isn't going to make that much of a difference in practise to anyone.

If we want to take things out of context, then the entire game is Pay2Win, as those who only bought the game yesterday have an extreme disadvantage over anyone who bought the game a week ago. What about me, who plays since beta, so even before the game was released? Surely it's P2W if I could lears the skills required to play the game before the people that got it on release? But oh wait, there were people playing the game since alpha, so even before me!

Do we want to do a full reset of the game for every sale of Elite Dangerous (and separately for Odyssey DLC), to give everyone perfectly equal chance of competing in every aspect of the game? Come on.

I can't believe you of all people is using arguments that SC backers make to claim selling ships in SC isn't P2W..

Of course newer players have a disadvantage, which is why I frame it in the context of two identical players - one who opened their wallet vs one who didn't.

We can invent all sorts of scenarios involving different players and different circumstances to try and justify why it shouldn't be considered P2W, but they are all pretty weak. A new player might not have a big hauler to get a good rank in the CG, but that limitation comes from their play time, not whether they have opened their wallet... but then, a new player could open their wallet and instantly be on a par with someone who has been playing the game for years, even have an advantage over someone who has played for years but doesn't open their wallet.

That's the whole point behind P2W... not how long someone has been playing, its whether they spend real money or not. It minimizes the effect of play time on capability - especially in relation to this CG, at a time when the PC is in EA.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Yes, I do see your point - a hauling CG immediately after releasing the best hauling ship for Arx purchase only is a fairly obvious push for us to go buy stuff. Although you could say the vast majority of people who have bought the PC would have done so even if it was a combat CG.

Thing is, those in the top 10 could be using T-8s to my Cutter and they'll still come out ahead of me. We have crossed into definite pay to win territory, the issue I think is that so many players are swimming in credits and materials that a couple more fancy cargo racks than we would have got if we just turned up with 1 ton isn't what people can be bothered getting worried about.

That said, it'll be interesting to see what numbers we get for people hauling to get in the top 75% now that 1000t + single deliveries are a thing.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

1 ton gets you one of each rack, so the issue is who gets two of each, those managing to get in the top 75%. Some CMDRs will not be bothered about getting into the top 75%, so will push up others rather than pushing them down.

If 1 in 4 CMDRs has an alt they only want to get in on the act, then that pushes others up. With the cost of the game being so cheap, I suspect that there are a lot of alts out there.

Being frugal with my arx, buying the cheap paint jobs etc when they were cheap etc, means I have saved up enough arx from playing to get the PC2 early if I want to. But I see no need as I am likely to get into the top 75% with modest effort.

That's the saving grace, that many people won't really participate, so getting top 75% should be doable with some effort... although if people start jockeying for that 75% we might see higher than normal competition as people come back to the CG to ensure they get that position.

 

[rootsrat]

We can invent all sorts of scenarios involving different players and different circumstances to try and justify why it shouldn't be considered P2W, but they are all pretty weak.

They're weak for you, as it's just an opinion - same as mine. If you were looking only for confirmations of your claims that the current CG is P2W, you should have said so, I wouldn't bother to post to present my opinions

You've asked the question, I answered. Clearly you don't like my answer, but I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, where there is no such thing... because again it's all just opinion.

 

[kofeyh]

That's not part of my argument.

But it is; your entire argument is the new ship is pay to win because of credits and the modules. This is like pretending everyone has the same amount of time, and then telling me that's not part of your argument either!

I'm not saying they have to spend years earning the ARX, i'm saying its impossible (unless they are lucky to have enough saved) to buy it during this CG.

And I have tried, gently, to point out that the ship isn't required to actually take part in the CG, Frontier have specifically configured it to only require 1 commodity to access the first two modules. As for making credits, CGs typically are quite the money earner. But that has been so over many CGs.

Its the CG coming while the PC is still in EA, therefore requiring (most people) to open their wallets to have the biggest rewards from this CG.

The biggest rewards go to those who have the most time to spend hauling cargo. Someone who has 30 hours a week, in a type-9, is going to outpace someone with 10 hours a week with a Panther Clipper; and by a very comfortable margin. This is simple mathematics.

Just as was the case before the PC existed. The single biggest factor is time; the ship might well come second, yes, but this game's currency is time and you very well know that.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

To me, subjectively, it seems more like someone trying to speak for the mechanics of the situation.

There's a lot of subjectivity involved in the whole topic of P2W in general. Some people consider some things to be P2W that others don't.

However, opinion aside, the mechanics are facts.

FD released the PC into EA, for real money.
The PC is now the best hauling ship in the game.
They immediately do a CG which as tiered rewards based on how much you can haul.

Even if you don't want to call it P2W, its clearly an attempt to "encourage" as many as possible to open their wallets to buy the PC. Its already going to be popular because of the "power creep" that all EA ships come with now, but if it makes the new CG easier and you can get more out of it... well, maybe you start thinking more about buying it for money, right, rather than waiting?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

They're weak for you, as it's just an opinion - same as mine. If you were looking only for confirmations of your claims that the current CG is P2W, you should have said so, I wouldn't bother to post to present my opinions

You've asked the question, I answered. Clearly you don't like my answer, but I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, where there is no such thing... because again it's all just opinion.

I'm debating with people who hold a different opinion. Naturally, I will be happy to hear from others who share my opinion.

I've explained why I think the arguments you presented are weak, in my opinion. If you have a counterpoint to that, be happy to hear. I do not see how the "new player" argument is relevant in this context, especially when the new player can open their wallet and be on par (or better) compared to a long term player. If anything, it adds to the argument that its P2W.