MisterBlackJack Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I am confused. So you can completely bypass the legacy level 40 requirement with cartel coins?? You can have legacy level 1, purchase cartel coins, and then purchase Treek? There is no confirmation on this. People are making assumptions because Treek will be on the cartel market, but no where does it say you can bypass legacy requirement (unfortunately they also didn't say you couldn't) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) your definition of pay to win is wrong and has been tailored to specifically suit this game. Sorry pal.. but that is the mainstream classic definition of P2W since the first cash shop went live years ago. It predates SWTOR. I get that some people want to redefine P2W to prosecute cash shops selling QoL and Fluff/Vanity content.. but most common sense players don't buy in to the redefinition. Edited July 2, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterBlackJack Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 your definition of pay to win is wrong and has been tailored to specifically suit this game. I'm sorry poster is correct. treek is not P2W. She doesn't give any competitive advantage over another player. Its simply a vanity item Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) The delusion is thinking that a companion in this MMO is somehow P2W. Besides.. you can acquire it multiple ways.. which is the new normal for this game since November (as you correctly pointed out above). P2W requires that 1) something be accessible only through a cash shop (which is not true here) AND 2) provides a winning advantage over other players (which again, is not true here). Treek is awesome IMO... but is not P2W because it fails both classic tests of what P2W means in MMOs. The cartel market managers love this definition. Gear accessories like armorings and mods that are 20% or 200% better than top tier raiding or pvp gear? No problemo! As long as they can be posted to GTN and sold for credits, they're not pay to win! Whee! Edited July 2, 2013 by DarthTHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlon_Nabarlly Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 your definition of pay to win is wrong and has been tailored to specifically suit this game. I think you have that backwards. I question slightly the only cash option, because if people could buy endgame gear for cash instead of raiding it would still be pay2win, but there does need to be a winning advantage which Ewoks in no way combine (except in RotJ for some reason...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Gear accessories like armorings and mods that are 20% or 200% better than top tier raiding or pvp gear? No problemo! As long as they can be posted to GTN and sold for credits, they're not pay to win! Whee! That is P2W by most peoples definition. Devs have said they won't do this. To date, they have not done this. So I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arlon_Nabarlly Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 That is P2W by most peoples definition. Devs have said they won't do this. To date, they have not done this. So I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. The point he was making is your definition seemed to allow that scenario and therefore is not what most MMOs define P2W as according to your post above. I had the same concern with your def. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) That is P2W by most peoples definition. Devs have said they won't do this. To date, they have not done this. So I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. Obviously my point is your definition - any definition that includes "can buy for cash but not otherwise available in game" - is a flawed definition of p2w. Edited July 2, 2013 by DarthTHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mosskiller Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 /signed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtkram Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Sorry pal.. but that is the mainstream classic definition of P2W since the first cash shop went live years ago. It predates SWTOR. I get that some people want to redefine P2W to prosecute cash shops selling QoL and Fluff/Vanity content.. but most common sense players don't buy in to the redefinition. what's your source? i'm not stating an alternate definition here. if someone wants to believe an ewok is or is not p2w, i leave that to the individual. my opinion is my own. i just don't think anyone would ever reasonably allow andryah to have the sole discretion to define common, classic, or standard terms for the entire MMO community. she has a bias. edited to add commentary: i do wish ea would hire creative staff to develop new storylines, instead of putting all the creative people on finding new ways to charge us and clever ways around their p2w statement. Edited July 2, 2013 by curtkram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gammawaves Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 There is no confirmation on this. People are making assumptions because Treek will be on the cartel market, but no where does it say you can bypass legacy requirement (unfortunately they also didn't say you couldn't) Hmm well since every other legacy requirement can be bypassed, I guess then it will be also true for the Ewok and the legacy level can be bypassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Hmm well since every other legacy requirement can be bypassed, I guess then it will be also true for the Ewok and the legacy level can be bypassed. Wait. You're basing your expectation on past experiences? That sort of reasoning has absolutely no place on an internet forum, let alone an internet forum associated with an MMO! Take your heathen views elsewhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The point he was making is your definition seemed to allow that scenario and therefore is not what most MMOs define P2W as according to your post above. I had the same concern with your def. My definition was in two parts, where both parts were required to meet the test, and followed the classic definition of P2W that has been around from years now. What was so hard to understand about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaron Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The only thing it does is help with the early game, not really all that different from someone that buys XP boosters and the like. Not signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Obviously my point is your definition - any definition that includes "can buy for cash but not otherwise available in game" - is a flawed definition of p2w. NOT when it also requires the second part of my definition... hence the "AND" between parts 1 and 2 of my definition. You are usually very good at reading other peoples posts... so you surprise me on this one. Did I not make "AND" prominent enough? Edited July 2, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) NOT when it also requires the second part of my definition... hence the "AND" between parts 1 and 2 of my definition. You are usually very good at reading other peoples posts... so you surprise me on this one. I quoted your whole thing. The teddy bear is NOT pay to win. However, if they do put gear into the CM that is better than top-tier raid or pvp, and it can be posted to the GTN, then by your definition it would not be pay to win. Your definition is flawed. Of course, you'll never admit that because you can't be wrong. But it's fun to watch you deny it and other forum denizens read it. Edited July 2, 2013 by DarthTHC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtkram Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 wouldn't the +1 crit for crafting give someone an advantage if they were trying to craft thermal regulators? not all of our companions have a +1 crit, so if we're running 3 or 4, that +1 would be an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 (edited) Your definition is flawed. I see the issue here. Not MY definition though. It is the classic definition of P2W in games with cash shops. You put the IF into it (to lock it into this specific MMOs nuance) and then declared it flawed. IF they can be sold on the GTN. I get that.. but these devs have already stated they will not do that. So in context to this MMO, you are stating the impossible (unless the devs do a complete nutty and shot the game in the head). Edited July 2, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I see the issue here. Not MY definition though. It is the classic definition of P2W in games with cash shops. You put the IF into it (to lock it into this specific MMOs nuance) and then declared it flawed. IF they can be sold on the GTN. I get that.. but these devs have already stated they will not do that. So in context to this MMO, you are stating the impossible (unless the devs do a complete nutty and shot the game in the head). No. What I'm saying is... try to read slowly... I'll type slowly for you... What I'm saying is that any definition that predicates "p2w-ness" on "only obtainable via cash shop" is a flawed definition. The definition is flawed because BWEA have put in a mechanism to defeat it - by making just about everything on the cash shop able to be posted on GTN either immediately or within a very short timeframe. The definition of p2w therefore must not predicate upon "only obtainable via cash shop". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 wouldn't the +1 crit for crafting give someone an advantage if they were trying to craft thermal regulators? not all of our companions have a +1 crit, so if we're running 3 or 4, that +1 would be an advantage. Technically an advantage -- but I think it is better than a useless companion (if she had nothing for crew skills). Minimal enough -- but that is certainly an advantage over people who don't get Treek. Now -- everyone in the game can get Treek without spending a cent of Real $. So -- tad different, maybe, because of how small it is. There is a very fine line, and no solid rules that the community will ever agree upon, except in extreme cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soluss Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 The delusion is thinking that a companion in this MMO is somehow P2W. Besides.. you can acquire it multiple ways.. which is the new normal for this game since November (as you correctly pointed out above). P2W requires that 1) something be accessible only through a cash shop (which is not true here) AND 2) provides a winning advantage over other players (which again, is not true here). Treek is awesome IMO... but is not P2W because it fails both classic tests of what P2W means in MMOs. Im not saying you are wrong with your definition but atleast see that people have different definitions. For example, my definition of P2W would include anything that bypasses content gating by paying real cash for it to open the gate. For me, bypassing legacy unlocks, with cash would be the same thing as paying cash to unlock your skill trees before you are leveled high enough to open them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthTHC Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 wouldn't the +1 crit for crafting give someone an advantage if they were trying to craft thermal regulators? not all of our companions have a +1 crit, so if we're running 3 or 4, that +1 would be an advantage. Yup. Next counter will be, "But it's such a tiny advantage it doesn't matter..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtkram Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 I see the issue here. Not MY definition though. It is the classic definition of P2W in games with cash shops. You put the IF into it (to lock it into this specific MMOs nuance) and then declared it flawed. IF they can be sold on the GTN. I get that.. but these devs have already stated they will not do that. So in context to this MMO, you are stating the impossible (unless the devs do a complete nutty and shot the game in the head). where did you get that definition? was there a ministry of MMOs set up with EQ back in the day? is it managed by any specific world leadership, or more of a consortium like the G8? carrying a stale old definition that doesn't flex to prevent companies like EA from exploiting terms like that is unwise. i think we all know what the 'spirit' of p2w is. most of us will disagree with where exactly the line is, but if EA didn't want to be p2w at all, we would all know it. they would have empty armor and emotes on the cash shop and that's it. if they didn't want BiS gear sold through the cartel market at all, they wouldn't have sold spaceship BiS gear through the cartel market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilora Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No. What I'm saying is... try to read slowly... I'll type slowly for you... What I'm saying is that any definition that predicates "p2w-ness" on "only obtainable via cash shop" is a flawed definition. The definition is flawed because BWEA have put in a mechanism to defeat it - by making just about everything on the cash shop able to be posted on GTN either immediately or within a very short timeframe. The definition of p2w therefore must not predicate upon "only obtainable via cash shop". Maybe I'm wrong -- but I read Andryah's post as meaning literally only available via the CM. As in, it doesn't exist in-game. Like, if they introduced a level of gear above Kell Dragon that was only purchasable from the GTN, and was literally the best gear in the game. Or, if Kell Dragon had come out and been CM-only. Or if set-bonus gear only came from the CM. Things like that. That may not be what Andryah was getting at -- but that is how I view it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 No. What I'm saying is... try to read slowly... I'll type slowly for you... What I'm saying is that any definition that predicates "p2w-ness" on "only obtainable via cash shop" is a flawed definition. The definition is flawed because BWEA have put in a mechanism to defeat it - by making just about everything on the cash shop able to be posted on GTN either immediately or within a very short timeframe. The definition of p2w therefore must not predicate upon "only obtainable via cash shop". LOL... OK.. but until Bioware implements P2W with the "mechanism" (which they have not done and said they will not do) the definition is fine as it stands. If you don't put P2W components in your shop.. the definition stands just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts