Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Moderation Message said:
Latest CG, the clearest example of P2W in ED to date?
- Thread starter Agony_Aunt
- Start date
That's easily explainable I think. Nobody likes to accept their favourite game is using bad practices. Go look at the SC forums and see them twist themselves in knots explaining how buying ships for hundreds or thousands of dollars isn't pay to win.
Years ago I argued against how Engineers wasn't pay to win in any way, but i was wrong and it took me many years and exposure to more P2W games and discussions before I realized i was defending something that shouldn't be defended, either accept it or not and that P2W isn't black and white but a sliding scale. Engineers did have P2W elements, even if they weren't particular egregious considering it was part of a major DLC that almost everyone would get anyway. My main issue these days with Engineers is the effect it had on both PvP and PvE, which to my mind made both worse due to hit point inflation and making combat more of a slog and widening the gap between big and small ships.
sigh but that's a topic for another day.
When I saw the current CG yesterday, similar thoughts had crossed my mind. Heck I watched 2million in titanium evaporated from two ports in about 8 hours, right by the time i was able to log on. I also had thoughts of holy crapith a month long CG with the Panther numbers growing each day, even with a panther i'm not sure I can make the top 75%. I do want those rewards, I am a trader by nature in this game and their value is outstanding. You can take your T-9 and Cutter and turn them into exceptional hauling beasts. Negating a bit the balance between those ships and Panther. I like that. I never planned to set those two aside. I love the T-9 just because of everything what the T-9 is. I love the Cutter because it takes the T-9's short comings and shines some protection, range, and speed to the equation.
I do think you have a valid argument. I do think it is a bit suspicious. It can give an impression of value to the Panther to entice players to buy one. A rather strong impression. I did see a red flag when i read the CG description. Another of my first impressions was- Oh man i really want those cargo racks. Then- Gees this is gonna be a tough one, even with a Panther.
I think there is an absolute wicked easy solution to the scenario. Just give all participants two of each rack. Then >POOF< all of the pay for advantage is gone, erased, like it never happened. They could also make them available for credits after the CG. Maybe limit two of each for a ship.
I am all for players supporting the game. I do not want to see this unique master piece disappear. I totally understand, especially in todays evaporative individual wealth world, not every player can support those wishes. I do not want them to be or feel left out, punished for their practical reasons of not purchasing a Panther. Real life food and bills outweighs everything, survival is pinnacle.
I do hope Fdev understand this, read what you stated Angry Aunt (lol), you know I mean Agony Aunt.And find a way not to separate their player base, but bring them closer together. Because that's way more fun and engaging to cooperate and share Elite together.
Note-There are good statements from both sides. Don't look too deeply, keep it simple, causal factor in this situation- two of each rather than one a piece. Can mean the difference of a player feeling equal and worthy, or a player feeling left out and disregarded.
Thank you for the balanced response.
P2W? No, because - again - everyone wins. There are no losers here.
P2A? Yes, but I already said that.
Perhaps you should make your question sound a bit less dramatic and give it more, wait for it, context?
::EDIT::
Scrap that. You did provide context. I think this is the crucial part of it:
In that context I have already agreed with you - Pay to get advantage. But you seem to argue it's actually more than that for some reason, which really goes against the definition of P2W you yourself have set for this discussion.
Second attempt. Just discovered linking a Yamiks video is objectionable content... i suppose he is a bit sweary.
Ok, we are getting circular here then, because as I asked you on page 1 (i think), isn't P2A an element of P2W?
I know a lot of people don't like Yamiks, but i think he made some good points in a video a year ago with Enderprize that are relevant here (i suspect you already saw it) where he details why things like P2A are still P2W. And he did a follow up with ObsidianAnt calling EA ships P2W.
(link to Yamiks and Obsidian Ant discussing P2W removed).
So, if you agree P2A is an element of P2W then I take it you agree this CG is P2W but if not, then you don't think there is any P2W in this CG?
Or you're simply opposing my use of the "there is nothing to win" element of the P2W discussion? I that case, fine, disregard it, we can allow the full spectrum of P2W here.
The big questions is whether Frontier will be encouraged to let their new commercial model impact the actual gameplay structures of Elite even further (create a problem - say a grindy gameplay concept such as Colonisation - then provide the solution, at a cost, to make that slightly less painful) - you could probably argue that things are so broken now it doesn't really matter anymore, but I suppose things can always get worse.
My modestly configured T9 can haul 3,000 tons of cargo in 4 runs. I expect to at least land in the top 75% with that amount.
If it turns out that a minimum of 12,000 tons was needed to stay in the 75% and a lot of PC2*s were involved in the CG then I'd honestly be irked and muttering "P2W" under my breath.
But that's just me, my personal threshold - other people's mileage may vary.
Alternatively, vary it up a bit, multiple CGs like last week, one to deliver Aluminum, one for CMMs, etc. Pay out one cargo hold for each. Maybe it won't hit tier 5 if you don't have people racing for top 75%, but people are still probably going to run cargo for profits.
Or for accumulated Arx from playing see this post
Latest CG, the clearest example of P2W in ED to date?
One of the typical rebuttals used in the P2W debate over FD selling ships for real money is "How can it be P2W if there is nothing to win?" Its a rather narrow view of what P2W is, but let's look at the current CG from the perspective of that particular point. The new CG is a hauling CG, one...forums.frontier.co.uk
Yes, I already responded to that. Its not really applicable to most people.
And while i'm not a big fan of the power creep that the new ships are bringing, I'm happy to see the PC finally in the game and being the biggest hauler, but I don't have an issue with that in itself.
No it doesn't because they never before introduced a new biggest hauler for cash just before doing a hauling CG. The last EA hauler they added was a the type 8, and any hauling CGs introduced during the EA period for the Type 8 were not affected since non-EA ships had more carry capacity.
And i never claimed they are or should be. I do believe their mismanagement of the game eventually led them down the distasteful practice of P2W and EA but i accept they had limited choice to keep the funding going. That isn't my point.
I wonder to win what? Because everyone is free to play on the Solo mode, where you're basically the only person in the game... If you're into PVP and other stuff, I find really hard to understand how extra cargo would affect you...
I mean, if other modules or ships come around where they're ONLY obtainable through ARX, or if FDev pull some Star Citizen , then I'd agree, for now, I think it's just another way to breathe some life into the game, I really don't see any reasons why people should be thinking there's a shadow reason for this
I mean, if other modules or ships come around where they're ONLY obtainable through ARX, or if FDev pull some Star Citizen , then I'd agree, for now, I think it's just another way to breathe some life into the game, I really don't see any reasons why people should be thinking there's a shadow reason for this
In solo you're still in a shared universe with other players.
Also, you do understand single player games can have P2W elements?
The main reward for this CG comes from doing "at least 1 contribution". Then an extra set of engineered cargo racks for top 75%. These will absolutely not require an early access Panther Clipper to compete.
Since Frontier wasn't clear if this was the reason for not having any exclusive rewards above top 75%, we unfortunately get click bait like this title and I'm sure many videos will be made on this subject, all despite Elite being among the least aggressive monetized online games out there, if not the least.
ARX is not limited to real money by the way - you can get a weekly 400 from Live and an extra 400 from Legacy. So it takes around 25 weeks (or 6 months) to earn enough for a large ship - meaning that if all 4 ships this year are larges, you can get 2 of them on early access without spending a single cent.
Yes, all these points have already been discussed.
Does that make it right? Does it mean we should accept it?
"Harry was the man who beat his wife the least at Wife Beaters Anonymous. Other than beating his wife he wasn't a bad man."
Look, i've made my peace with FD selling ships for money. I've made my peace with new ships having an EA period of approximately 3 months.
My specific beef here is FD doing a hauling CG immediately after the new biggest hauling ship has gone into EA, with some rather specific and new items (not available for purchase for credits) available and having a PC will definitely give you an edge in hitting that 75% for the additional modules. Even if using a different ship can get you into that top 75% it means those who opened their wallets have an easier time of hitting the top 75% and staying there, they will require less effort.
Heh, well, it gets engagement.
A lot will depend on how many people jump in for just the 1 ton and reward. The extra modules for hitting 75% are of interest for anyone who does plenty of hauling, especially for people doing colonization, which has been very popular but people complain about the amount of effort, so getting 75% might in the long run save you a lot of time doing colonization.
If the CG becomes competitive for that 75% place, which might become apparent in the coming week or two, it might open more wallets from people who really want those extra modules.
If every ship in the top 75% is a PC II, I'll consider it, but if there is even 1 other type of ship ship, then no, it just isn't, is it?
That is what opinions are, isn't it?
Each belongs to the individual holding them.
Heh, ok. But as pointed out, some people will put in a lot of effort even in smaller ships. Which is why from my point of view we have to consider like for like players to evaluate P2W. I'm sure plenty who hit 75% will be flying type 9s, Cutters, and other ships. But they will have to put in more effort than those who open their wallets - hence the P2W element in my opinion.
Indeed, and i never argued that people can't have their own opinions. I have and do argue against those opinions, which is called debating.
Gamers will put in as much, or as little, time into playing as they wish.
Even if every contributor to the CG was flying a PC II, 25% of them will not get 2 sets of cargo racks, only 1 set.
It comes down to how much time and effort a player wishes to put in to their play, and their determination to 'compete' (of which I have just slightly above zero inclination) wiht others playing. I'll put almost no effort into the CG, but, as I fly a PC II, I'll win everything, apparently.
Sorry, I am not going to read four pages of bickering, so if my opinion and contribution is moot or redundant... I'll give it anyway.
You can argue about selling ships for money in general or course. And it's different for the EA ships than the jumpstarter ones, although the jumpstart ones are apparently mediocre enough to allow players who wish so to skip some legwork ("grind") but not to ruin the game. Whatever.
Arguing that the current CG is textbook pay to win is a bit rich though. For one, there's nothing really to win execpt a few more credits. Apart from that practically everyone else gets the same reward if they participate and do more than a lunch break's worth of time - 75% isn't exactly a demanding threshold.
It's hard in general to argue about P2W when there's nothing really to win, as has already been said before, even in the OP. You can argue about paying for an advantage, but especially in the context of the PC and this CG, I think that's a bit thin. And all EA ships lose their "advantage" on a more or less short time scale, in the grand scope of things.
So yeah, at the moment I think it's fine how it is handled. I'm not going to comment about the Latvian and his constant "pay to win" crying. It's his MO to cry about everything as if it's the final decline of the game, he's been doing it for years now.
And as a disclaimer: Yes, I bought all the EA ships, even the PC even though I hate hauling and didn't really need one. I would never buy a jumpstart ship though, they are stupid and I can build better ships for free.
You can argue about selling ships for money in general or course. And it's different for the EA ships than the jumpstarter ones, although the jumpstart ones are apparently mediocre enough to allow players who wish so to skip some legwork ("grind") but not to ruin the game. Whatever.
Arguing that the current CG is textbook pay to win is a bit rich though. For one, there's nothing really to win execpt a few more credits. Apart from that practically everyone else gets the same reward if they participate and do more than a lunch break's worth of time - 75% isn't exactly a demanding threshold.
It's hard in general to argue about P2W when there's nothing really to win, as has already been said before, even in the OP. You can argue about paying for an advantage, but especially in the context of the PC and this CG, I think that's a bit thin. And all EA ships lose their "advantage" on a more or less short time scale, in the grand scope of things.
So yeah, at the moment I think it's fine how it is handled. I'm not going to comment about the Latvian and his constant "pay to win" crying. It's his MO to cry about everything as if it's the final decline of the game, he's been doing it for years now.
And as a disclaimer: Yes, I bought all the EA ships, even the PC even though I hate hauling and didn't really need one. I would never buy a jumpstart ship though, they are stupid and I can build better ships for free.
I saw this CG and my thoughts were hmmm Fdev made a bigger ship and it's on early access only not even 2 days in . They had upped the cash requirements because it's a "big" ship.
So yes their motives are a bit dodgy to say the least.
They could have had it before the early access ?
I don't have the arx( due to moving to PC recently) . Am I at a disadvantage ?
My cutter holds 728
A PC MK2 is say 1100
10 journeys each. Cutter 7280 PC 11000.
20 journeys 14560 , 22000 so that's 7440 so I would have to do 10 more runs to equal .
Now we don't know the end totals even for the top 75% yet but if it's say 20000 I'm not there so I only win 1 set of cargo . Because I couldn't buy the early access. That's the issue.
So yes their motives are a bit dodgy to say the least.
They could have had it before the early access ?
I don't have the arx( due to moving to PC recently) . Am I at a disadvantage ?
My cutter holds 728
A PC MK2 is say 1100
10 journeys each. Cutter 7280 PC 11000.
20 journeys 14560 , 22000 so that's 7440 so I would have to do 10 more runs to equal .
Now we don't know the end totals even for the top 75% yet but if it's say 20000 I'm not there so I only win 1 set of cargo . Because I couldn't buy the early access. That's the issue.
I understand you not wanting to read the previous posts. Problem with that is, all your points have been addressed one way or another.
But since you didn't want to read any of the rebuttals already made, I won't bother posting them again in reply to you