criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Forest of Endor

Should level 40, and 70 match an "elite" or "skilled" player

2Next

Replies

  • bfloo wrote: »
    Appl3corps wrote: »
    Lol leveling meaning something, about as relevant as star cards and weapon mods. All pointless

    So the loot crate system was never "pay to win" is what you are saying?

    100% do not believe it was pay to win. Pay to progress sure, however I was max ranking heroes and troopers prior to the casualization progression patch.

    the phrase "pay to win" does not always mean you literally win just from paying. It's just a phrase that caught on ever since the Candy Crush era of mobile games that required you to literally pay to continue playing the game.

    If you wanna take the phrase literally, then yes, it's technically not pay to win, but there's no denying that it was a "pay to win" model they used in the beginning. Why else would everyone have made such a big deal about it?

    I don't think it would have been ptw in this game, star cards generally aren't that strong.

    If it went through without any complaints, it would have been a problem in future games as they kept pushing it further and further.

    I actually believe the same thing, the star cards really wren't that much of a difference at launch because people had yet to understand what metas were available, but common sense from a game design stand point should have told them that having the ability to pay for an advantage in the game was a bad idea.

    honestly, I have no idea how they ever thought that that was ever going to fly with the fan base lmao
  • bfloo wrote: »
    GenxDarchi wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    bfloo wrote: »
    Appl3corps wrote: »
    Lol leveling meaning something, about as relevant as star cards and weapon mods. All pointless

    So the loot crate system was never "pay to win" is what you are saying?

    100% do not believe it was pay to win. Pay to progress sure, however I was max ranking heroes and troopers prior to the casualization progression patch.

    the phrase "pay to win" does not always mean you literally win just from paying. It's just a phrase that caught on ever since the Candy Crush era of mobile games that required you to literally pay to continue playing the game.

    If you wanna take the phrase literally, then yes, it's technically not pay to win, but there's no denying that it was a "pay to win" model they used in the beginning. Why else would everyone have made such a big deal about it?

    I don't think it would have been ptw in this game, star cards generally aren't that strong.

    If it went through without any complaints, it would have been a problem in future games as they kept pushing it further and further.

    Quote: “star cards generally aren’t that strong”

    So HoK star cards aren’t that strong for heroes in GA? As I can recall, some heroes were unplayable in GA because they didn’t have HoK cards. Imagine buying tons of loot boxes and not getting a single HoK star card for any hero.

    I think the loot boxes were pay2win and I would have never played the online service of this game while they were still active. At launch, all I played was the Campaign and Arcade.

    HoK cards came long after that debacle, and crystals were pulled before launch.

    My argument about the HoK cards was that it proves that some star cards can be pretty strong.

    Your point is true, but, what if lootboxes still existed when those HoK cards came out, then GA hero gameplay would really devolve into pay2win.

    It would have been pay to catch up at that point, I had ~ 2/3 of the heroes maxed out at that point, and all but 2 to any purple card I wanted.

    I will grant, I think progression in shooters as far as weapons goes destroyed the level playing field and was the worst thing to happen to shooters.

    Yeah, the difference between the standard Officer gun and the SE-44c I staggering with mods, just like the TL-50 and the Standars heavy. It means that most of the time the gun you have is the biggest deciding factor.

    This is an issue in every shooter now. I jumped into Battlefield 1 when the French dlc released and was so outgunned it was comical.

    this is why I mainly play games with fair starts. Shooters where you need to unlock better guns are just a joke imo, games designed for people who really aren't good at shooters lol
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everyone believes that their opinion is the truth. Just because you don’t agree with my opinion doesn’t make it false (necessarily). Just because you think your opinion is the truth doesn’t make it true (necessarily).

    Btw, I prefer my moon as swiss cheese. ;)

    I disagree... your assertion of "pay2win" is a conditional reasoning/deductive reasoning statement which requires that the sufficient condition will indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time for it to be logically valid. If it does not indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time, then the conclusion is logically invalid and thus objectively false.

    Lets break it down... "pay2win". This could mean a couple things logically... but on first pass it would appear to mean "If you pay, then you will win" (with the contrapositive being if you don't win, then you didn't pay). Alternatively it could mean "If you win, then you paid" (in which case "pay" becomes the necessary condition and the contrapositive would be "if you don't pay, then you don't win"). In order for the assertion to be logically valid the presence of the sufficient condition MUST prove the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time... if it does not, then the assertion is invalid.

    So, lets say "pay2win" means "If you pay, then you will win" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could pay, and still lose, then this assertion is invalid.

    Now, lets say "pay2win" means "If you win, then you paid" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could win, and have not paid, then this assertion is invalid.

    No matter how you setup "pay2win" for the sufficient/necessary order, none of them yield a 100% probability that the necessary condition will exist in the presence of the sufficient condition... thus the assertion of "pay2win" is logically invalid.

    Nicely stated. I will reword my argument: “pay 2 win more often”.
    Bring back Extraction to the main menu please!

    What the ROADMAP should look like for 2019/2020:
    “Season” 4: Episode IX
    “Season” 5: Rogue One
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everyone believes that their opinion is the truth. Just because you don’t agree with my opinion doesn’t make it false (necessarily). Just because you think your opinion is the truth doesn’t make it true (necessarily).

    Btw, I prefer my moon as swiss cheese. ;)

    I disagree... your assertion of "pay2win" is a conditional reasoning/deductive reasoning statement which requires that the sufficient condition will indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time for it to be logically valid. If it does not indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time, then the conclusion is logically invalid and thus objectively false.

    Lets break it down... "pay2win". This could mean a couple things logically... but on first pass it would appear to mean "If you pay, then you will win" (with the contrapositive being if you don't win, then you didn't pay). Alternatively it could mean "If you win, then you paid" (in which case "pay" becomes the necessary condition and the contrapositive would be "if you don't pay, then you don't win"). In order for the assertion to be logically valid the presence of the sufficient condition MUST prove the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time... if it does not, then the assertion is invalid.

    So, lets say "pay2win" means "If you pay, then you will win" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could pay, and still lose, then this assertion is invalid.

    Now, lets say "pay2win" means "If you win, then you paid" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could win, and have not paid, then this assertion is invalid.

    No matter how you setup "pay2win" for the sufficient/necessary order, none of them yield a 100% probability that the necessary condition will exist in the presence of the sufficient condition... thus the assertion of "pay2win" is logically invalid.

    Nicely stated. I will reword my argument: “pay 2 win more often”.

    I mean it is functionally "pay2progress"... but paying for progression is not the same as paying to win. Say you have 2 players... player X has purchased every purple card with MTX, player Y has earned every card through gameplay... does the player who paid for their cards have an increased chance of "winning" over the person who earned all their identical cards through gameplay?
  • t3hBar0n wrote: »
    t3hBar0n wrote: »

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everyone believes that their opinion is the truth. Just because you don’t agree with my opinion doesn’t make it false (necessarily). Just because you think your opinion is the truth doesn’t make it true (necessarily).

    Btw, I prefer my moon as swiss cheese. ;)

    I disagree... your assertion of "pay2win" is a conditional reasoning/deductive reasoning statement which requires that the sufficient condition will indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time for it to be logically valid. If it does not indicate the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time, then the conclusion is logically invalid and thus objectively false.

    Lets break it down... "pay2win". This could mean a couple things logically... but on first pass it would appear to mean "If you pay, then you will win" (with the contrapositive being if you don't win, then you didn't pay). Alternatively it could mean "If you win, then you paid" (in which case "pay" becomes the necessary condition and the contrapositive would be "if you don't pay, then you don't win"). In order for the assertion to be logically valid the presence of the sufficient condition MUST prove the presence of the necessary condition 100% of the time... if it does not, then the assertion is invalid.

    So, lets say "pay2win" means "If you pay, then you will win" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could pay, and still lose, then this assertion is invalid.

    Now, lets say "pay2win" means "If you win, then you paid" and its contrapositive. If there is a scenario where you could win, and have not paid, then this assertion is invalid.

    No matter how you setup "pay2win" for the sufficient/necessary order, none of them yield a 100% probability that the necessary condition will exist in the presence of the sufficient condition... thus the assertion of "pay2win" is logically invalid.

    Nicely stated. I will reword my argument: “pay 2 win more often”.

    I mean it is functionally "pay2progress"... but paying for progression is not the same as paying to win. Say you have 2 players... player X has purchased every purple card with MTX, player Y has earned every card through gameplay... does the player who paid for their cards have an increased chance of "winning" over the person who earned all their identical cards through gameplay?

    yes but temporarily, I did not reconcile BF2 as pay2win because no weapon or star card is blocked by money, you gain time ahead of other players, the where I protest is that
    DICE should have

    1 wait 6 months before allowing the players to buy the lootboxes with the crystals, to allow time for the players who buy the game to get out of power level up their cards without being at a disadvantage.

    2 Isolate / regroup the players who paid the loot bot at the beginning of the game as DICE promised, to allow normal players not to be disadvantaged
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!