Thoughts? How about WALL OF TEXT!! (I was commenting on my wall of text, it was supposed to be a joke, but probably came across wrong)


Well, I just disagree that buying a special dreadnought is pay to win. I don't think that having a dreadnought that is close combat really offers any advantage, other than its inherent advantage. Yeah, it costs money. But it isn't going to make you better, or make the enemy worse. It really doesn't take anything away from anyone else, it just adds options to your side of the coin. The other side of the coin isn't any better or worse than it was. Also, the coin has many sides, and variety shouldn't be something that is difficult to deal with in this game.

It just seems silly for anyone to get bent out of shape over something like this. Yeah, not everyone wants to pay for in-game content. But that doesn't mean that you are at any disadvantage really, unless not having the most toys is a disadvantage. I guess the best way to explain is not the shotgun vs sniper idea. Think of it as M4A1 vs AK-47, or any other AR. Say you had 8 choices, and someone else payed for a 9th and 10th. Yes, the AR's have different statistics, but generally speaking, they all play a certain way. In the Dreadnoughts case, this is a slow moving, heavily armored, heavy weapons platform. When you still go into battle, you take with you whatever weapon you chose. You do not know what weapon they will be using. Each weapon has strengths/weaknesses; since you cannot choose your opponent, you play to your strengths. You should be able to adapt to any situation, that's why having more options may or may not be an advantage or disadvantage. It's not like someone is paying for Air vehicles. Someone is buying a dread. That's first. The way it kills is secondary, that just determines how you attack it (could be a disadvantage, I'll give you that).

I will say that I understand your argument, and I don't disagree with how you feel that money may become a factor in success. No one wants that at all. I just think that it is a little disproportional to what will actually happen in-game. I think that we really need to have more information about the game before we can decide what will in fact be pay to win. Also, I don't like the idea of in-game stores in general, but this newer generation accepts it, and they are the driving force in the industry. The only reason I am defending this is because the game is going to need to be profitable, and I think that when it comes to buying in-game things, you need to feel like you actually got something for your money. Miguel already said that the in-game store is the direction that the genre is heading, so I think that it is important to get this right. Although, I believe that he was thinking more on the lines of some skins or minor stat differences. We'll see.

Anyways, I think we can probably end this here. I wouldn't mind if you clarified your point, but I don't think I have anything more productive that I can add.

Hi NeoSkywalker,
What do you think about optional additional payments for some of the community to help fund specific content they want developed? Those who participated would not gain any pay-to-win or exclusive gameplay content, and again, it would be optional, so everything else you just said would still apply.

lolz, it was kinda long Edit: lolz again; both our posts are long

I agree the profit is important, and we should definitely get any in-game store content right, because it has potential to both help and hurt the game in many ways.

Say Rogue Trader Dreadnaught stats'(or gear) are equivalent character building options, their stats(or gear) are no more or less powerful overall, but they have some minuscule strengths and weaknesses when compared to the Chapter Dreadnaught stats'(or gear). When you consider the entire character build; all the other character build options could be selected specifically to either take more advantage of some minuscule strength and/or take less disadvantage of some minuscule weakness inherent in the Rogue Trader Dreadnaught stats'(or gear) than the Chapter Dreadnaught stats'(or gear) could ever have been stretched to.

You may start with a minuscule difference between a single option, but the rest of a build's options can take that seemingly insignificant difference, run with it, and create a character build significantly more powerful in some specific situation.

This can enable players to play to their strengths and adapt to their weaknesses with less proficiency than their opponent, but still triumph because their build was superior.

If every Space Marine has this option, there is no problem; but once Space Marines can buy it, only those who indeed bought the option will be better at those specific exclusive situations.


Questions for the community:
Is pay-to-win defined as buying a character who is more powerful in every situation, thereby "winning" all situations with cash?

Or, is pay-to-win defined as buying a character who is only more powerful in some specific situation, thereby "winning" those situations with cash?

Should players be allowed to buy character options which can make them more powerful in some specific situation?

Oh anything that gives you an advantage is p2w for the hardcore definition, and there are those who will not bend on this, some even say cosmetic can be p2w because you just look more powerful.

Some say a faster dreadnought but weaker is p2w because a rogue trader sells it, it gives you an advantage so its p2w, but then again if i venture out with my plasma and you have a bolter, does it mean i have a p2w weapon because i am stronger vs armour and someone is not?

It is horizontal my statistics show plasma is far better vs armour so i melt peoples defences fast so my team can kill someone off once the armour is gone, if i choose a dreadnought which is faster but weaker i do that to have speed advantage not strength,

I trade of one strength for another yet receive a weakness, same goes for what i pick if it is the bolter or plasma gun, for some reason its p2w for the dreadnought but not when i pick plasma instead of bolter.

And the opposite is that they lose because their build was inferior, swings and roundabouts. Somewhere down the line it should balance out because the Rogue Trader dreadnought is not going to be good at every scenario it enters.

The skill is only using it where it will be superior, but that won't always happen or be possible so the only way I can see it being pay to win is if it would be superior in every situation

EDIT: scratch this post, original quote clarified.

Like I said...

His build was only inferior because he didn't want to pay cash.

Did I misunderstand your comment, or were you saying you see no problem with having a less powerful build than players who pay extra cash?

I certainly haven't seen anyone say that "looking more powerful" is equivalent to pay to win, but I'm guessing that comment was probably directed at some of the things I've said. In clarification; if a games progression system is cosmetic (as opposed to horizontal or vertical stat progression), and you can purchase top tier armour for real money rather than earning it legitimately though gameplay, then it trivializes content and is, in my opinion, just as detrimental as having items that are pay to win.

It's not the same in the literal sense of the term, but it's giving those with a credit card an advantage (being able to circumvent content) over those who don't. Personal character progression, be it combat stats, combat honours, combat skills, customization options or otherwise, is how I would personally define winning. If you've paid real money to circumvent character progression, you've paid to win.

I think the people who would argue that this is pay to win are doing so because Person A, who uses credit cards, has more combat options to handle different situations; you're literally purchasing combat diversity. Person B, who does not use credit cards, does not have those options available to him and may lack combat diversity. The person who has the ability to adapt to a changing battlefield is going to have a massive advantage over someone who doesn't. It's battlefield Darwinism. Give over your credit card details, adapt with the new options given to you and overcome the enemy; or don't and die.

Take in to consideration that this game will have a metagame and people will exploit any advantage they can.

Araghast, you mentioned a page back that you'd prefer if this game didn't have a cash shop and was buy to play with expansions; I absolutely, whole heatedly agree with you.

Is this a rhetorical question, Beast?

#

What is your definition of less powerful?
My definition would be "have no significant advantage in any situation"

As i said, the skill in only using something that has a specific disadvantage , in situations where it has an advantage will not always be possible. CD, resources etc will limit it. And no matter what this game is going to have something that will counter it,.

Ah, you clarified your post after I quoted it.
Yes players will not be able to always play to their build's advantages, but they will be able to meta-game to play to their advantages more often than otherwise, if not more often than not.
Also, the CD and resources etc. are some of the stats we are already talking about having their advantages and disadvantages on.

But that only counts is if the only way you can win in a certain situation is to buy that piece of gear from the cash shop/rogue trader.

With many different load outs I really can't see the situation you have mentioned being only winnable through real money transactions.