dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Just to clarify
The Star Citizen Thread v9
- Thread starter Yaffle
- Start date
Just to clarify
No, he's theorycrafting that there will be a matchmaker ironing out imbalances. Kinda unrealistic in a FFA KoS setting.
Jacques d'Orleans
Banned
P2W:
Lets say there are 2 players at the launch of ED, the one has a stock starter Sidey and the other has a fully engineered and fully exploration equiped ASP Explorer, which he has bought with ingame currency during alpha/beta testing.
Lets say there are 2 players at the launch of ED, the one has a stock starter Sidey and the other has a fully engineered and fully combat eqipped Imperial Cutter, which he has bought with ingame currency during alpha/beta testing.
Lets say there are 2 players at the launch of ED, the one has a stock starter Sidey and the other has a fully engineered and fully cargo eqipped Type 9 Heavy, which he has bought with ingame currency during alpha/beta testing.
Lets say there are 2 players at the launch of ED, the one has a stock starter Sidey and the other has a fully engineered and fully Passenger transport equipped Beluga/Orca, which he has bought with ingame currency during alpha/beta testing.
Lets say there are 2 players at the launch of ED, the one has a stock starter Sidey and no money and the other can easily pay all repairs, fuel, NPC crew and so on and so forth, because he has a huge amount of ingame currency bought with real dollars during alpha/beta testing.
You don't really gonna tell me that poor sod in the stock Sidey has no disadvantage, do you?
Well, there were no engineers when FD sold "Explorer" starting packs for ED before launch, but otherwise...
Yet, is that a big issue right now? Not really. Because for all the noise caused by the P2W acronym, in-game advantages and time skips are not a uniform field and need to be evaluated in context.
I'm saying force of numbers > how great one ship is. Force of numbers will always win.
20 sidewinders VS 1 ASP Explorer, who do you think will win?
- We are digressing, this is a Star Citizen thread.
This wasn't saying X isn't Y. My point is P2W is only valid on a 1 on 1 situation. Force of numbers even with cheap ships will always beat a single better class ship.
Will it though? Until we see this in action we can't say for certain it will be the case, and with CIG catering more and more for the whales there's a good chance they start balancing the game around those that have paid. The whales are going to be able to buy grade A mods on day 1 while the normies have to make do with their grade E stuff.
In games like Black Desert or Blade and Soul the whales can mass tank and one/two shot the non-whales. I hope that is not what happens in SC.
…and that has nothing to do with, and in no way nullifies, P2W.
Your point is incorrect, and you example illustrates this perfectly.
P2W is valid in any situation where one party gets an advantage because they paid over another party who did not.
And your point just goes to show the opposite? How can the Idris person (who has "PAID TO WIN") beat 20 auroras? (in theory)?
By requiring 20 people to take him down. That is the very definition of P2W. Again, you example only serves to disprove your point.
It's the same smokescreen as the “skill gap” excuse. Just because one guy can beat a less skilled guy who bought a better ship does not mean that the act of buying does not impart an advantage — that it is not P2W. What if he hadn't been less skilled? Just because one guy can be defeated by a more numerous foe even though he bought a better ship does not mean that the act of buying does not impart an advantage — that it is not P2W. What if his side had also had been more numerous? Same thing.
The numbers inequality or the skill gap does not remove or nullify the P2W — they only highlight that it exists and why it causes such huge problematic imbalances.
Last edited:
Theoretically..... they can't as they could never get into an instance with 20 other players at the same time!
P2W is valid in any situation where one party gets an advantage because they paid over another party who did not.
Well clearly not in my example.
Very clearly in your example. THEY HAD TO USE 20 GUYS TO TAKE HIM OUT.
That is an absolutely insane advantage, and it doesn't even stop there.
The solution is to not allow people to pay for that advantage. It should be pretty darn obvious.
It is actually pretty obvious.
…except for not allowing people to pay for that advantage. You know, the blatantly obvious solution.