Great post about pay2win and pay2savetime

[Alaris]

But it's not a redefinition if you win by doing things faster, now is it? I really would like you to respond to that question. Are you or are you not more efficient at a 100m sprint if you run faster?

And, of course they do. That's why there are guides on getting to level 70 (in WoW) within a week etc.

If your measure of success is completing content without buying into cash-shop items or consumables, as is mine by the way, then those things are automatically considered pay2lose. Or pay2loser as I would like to put it. Redefinition's flaw is that it makes it impossible to reach agreement, and is used only to stalemate a smart opponent, or to get a false win from a bad opponent.

Also I don't recall the 100m race described as "the endgame is the whole race". So your question will not get answered hahah.

[raspberry jam]

If your measure of success is completing content without buying into cash-shop items or consumables, as is mine by the way, then those things are automatically considered pay2lose. Or pay2loser as I would like to put it. Redefinition's flaw is that it makes it impossible to reach agreement, and is used only to stalemate a smart opponent, or to get a false win from a bad opponent.

Also I don't recall the 100m race described as "the endgame is the whole race". So your question will not get answered hahah.

It's not redefinition. As you say, if you measure success as success without buying anything, then the increased efficiency in-game that you get from buying anything can hardly be considered increased efficiency under your own measure of success.
However, your measure of success is individual and applies to you. Others will have no idea if you succeed or not, because they do not know if you buy anything or not. Recognition is a large factor in MMOs. Achieving goals defined by the game (such as levels, titles, fancy armors and such) are not individual and will yield recognition among the playerbase just because they can (as you should know, people tend to assign status to completely meaningless things when in wont of meaningful things to assign status to).

I will give you one more chance to answer. Is 100m sprint a game, or is it a non-game?

Trying to dodge the question by referring to marketing hype is the most ridiculous way of trying to dodge a question I have ever seen on this board.

[RabidCoqui]

100m is a competition where how fast you reach the finish is important because you are competing. You dont win by simply finishing the race. Reaching max lvl in pve might be seen the same way by some, but my guess is that many others do not care how fast they achieve it compared to others.

[Alaris]

I will give you one more chance to answer.

Or what?

What made you the master of these boards? How huge is your ego, really?

I made my point plenty of times. I backed it up with solid arguments. But my argument rests on the definition that pay2win is paying to improve your chances of success, not paying to improve how fast you progress. This is the definition we all seem to agree on. Everyone but you.

So either get on with the program, or don't. I don't actually care either way. But let's be clear, your conclusions are correct within the very tight and anomalous fantasy space defined by your redefinitions, and do not apply to the normal world in which the rest of us live in. You question is clearly crafted to drag me into that space, and I will continue to dodge it, because it is not even relevant to the actual issue.

Two gold medalist at the 100m race. One got it at 18yo, another at 22yo. Which one is more of a gold medalist? Answer: neither, they are both gold medalists.

[BladeDVD]

Well, you do have a point. However, I personally don't feel comfortable with getting 15% less xp than I should.

I think of it more as "could," than "should." I think we have a complete game in GW2, the cash shop is just giving an opportunity to go a little faster if you want to.

As to your question: in the pay2win example, the two versions are interacting with each other. In the pay2savetime version, the two versions are competing by doing something side by side, and the one that gets to the end fastest wins. The only difference is the lack of interaction. In a running competition, paying to save time is literally paying to win.

I thought you stipulated that p2st=p2w didn't have anything to do with beating someone to 80. I would think any example using a competition would therefore be irrelevant according to your terms.

[raspberry jam]

100m is a competition where how fast you reach the finish is important because you are competing. You dont win by simply finishing the race. Reaching max lvl in pve might be seen the same way by some, but my guess is that many others do not care how fast they achieve it compared to others.

Correct, you win the race by finishing it before anyone else has finished it. Saving time literally means that you will get closer to winning.
And it has never been a question of being faster than others. It is a question of being faster than you yourself otherwise would.

Or what?

What made you the master of these boards? How huge is your ego, really?

I made my point plenty of times. I backed it up with solid arguments. But my argument rests on the definition that pay2win is paying to improve your chances of success, not paying to improve how fast you progress. This is the definition we all seem to agree on. Everyone but you.

So either get on with the program, or don't. I don't actually care either way. But let's be clear, your conclusions are correct within the very tight and anomalous fantasy space defined by your redefinitions, and do not apply to the normal world in which the rest of us live in. You question is clearly crafted to drag me into that space, and I will continue to dodge it, because it is not even relevant to the actual issue.

Two gold medalist at the 100m race. One got it at 18yo, another at 22yo. Which one is more of a gold medalist? Answer: neither, they are both gold medalists.

Or nothing. If you don't answer, you don't answer.
And you will hear about that for years to come

In a 100m race you have 100% chance of success if your measure of success is to finish the race (well, 99% chance maybe, there's always the chance that you will have a cardiac arrest during the race or something I guess). Paying to win a 100m race literally means paying to save time. You know this, and that's why you desperately do anything to avoid answering the question.

In a 100m race the goal is usually not to do it at as early an age as possible. Meanwhile, there are players (despite the marketing hype) who will see getting to 80 as fast as possible as a goal. Especially when they are playing their 8th or something character and they don't really care about the rather extremely cheesy the personal story, but just want to reach the full potential of their character as soon as possible.

I mean, when you did the treasure hunter title or whatever, what did you care about: the journey or just getting to the chest? When you got the party animal title, did you care about just popping off the fireworks or did you actually look at and care about every single one of the pretty animations?

I think of it more as "could," than "should." I think we have a complete game in GW2, the cash shop is just giving an opportunity to go a little faster if you want to.


I thought you stipulated that p2st=p2w didn't have anything to do with beating someone to 80. I would think any example using a competition would therefore be irrelevant according to your terms.

No, it's "should". If you are not getting those extra 15%, you are playing suboptimally.
Skill at a game is only decided by your performance in it. In other words, buying boosts = skill. This is of course a complete perversion. The cash shop doesn't give you an opportunity to go faster: rather, you have a choice between either paying to go at normal speed or not paying but going slower.

Also, keep reading. The "competition" is between you while paying and you while not paying. It is an illustration of that paying makes you play more efficiently, which is the nature of pay2win boosts.

[Wethospu]

I don't really understand why you guys bother with the cash-shop when there is a lot bigger pay2win issue, the game itself. Paying for the game makes reaching GW2 goals much much easier and faster (way more than everything in cash shop combined!)

[raspberry jam]

I don't really understand why you guys bother with the cash-shop when there is a lot bigger pay2win issue, the game itself. Paying for the game makes reaching GW2 goals much much easier and faster (way more than everything in cash shop combined!)

Like many have said with me, paying for a straight-to-80 xp package would be perfectly ok. With the amount of money that I'm already paying for the game itself, I feel that I should be given the full potential of my character right away, or at least the full xp income ratio. Instead, they keep asking for even more money in order to let me play at an even remotely efficient level.

SW:ToR is going f2p, or rather b2p since you still have to buy the game itself. However, if you don't pay a sub fee you will have a limited character. This is no different.

[Wethospu]

Like many have said with me, paying for a straight-to-80 xp package would be perfectly ok. With the amount of money that I'm already paying for the game itself, I feel that I should be given the full potential of my character right away, or at least the full xp income ratio. Instead, they keep asking for even more money in order to let me play at an even remotely efficient level.

SW:ToR is going f2p, or rather b2p since you still have to buy the game itself. However, if you don't pay a sub fee you will have a limited character. This is no different.

Why do you bother with potential? Would you still complain if kill XP got increased by 10%? And most importantly would you stop complaining if they removed XP boost AND reduced kill XP by 10%? Because it really seems you are just trying to make an issue...
The PvE, even WvW isn't supposed to be balanced. It is just something you just have to deal with.

[raspberry jam]

Why do you bother with potential? Would you still complain if kill XP got increased by 10%? And most importantly would you stop complaining if they removed XP boost AND reduced kill XP by 10%? Because it really seems you are just trying to make an issue...
The PvE, even WvW isn't supposed to be balanced. It is just something you just have to deal with.

I bother with potential since I do not enjoy playing a gimped character. I would remark if the boosts gave a 1% xp boost for kills. And if they removed the boost and set the kill xp amount to whatever (including zero) my argument would go away because it's about the boosts which would be removed.

My argument was never about balance (not the balance you are thinking about, at least), but about not having what is basically a sub fee (or else you'll be playing at a suboptimal level).