please end mystery boxes (loot boxes, glorified gambling)
"
vio wrote:
"
Sickness wrote:
How about selling currency in the shop? Is that P2W? You don't need to them to win the game any more than you need the extra currency earned from a premium tab to win the game.
personally i see "winning the economy" not as "winning the game".
purchasing items ever felt like cheating to me.
given you're good at scripting and have alot of time, using it to flip items 20/7 to get rich, you still lack the skill to survive endgame content.
you see those guys with overpowered gear often pop up in help sections here and on reddit, helpless cause they're lost even with gazillions of dps.
winning is different.
if the game had an automated offline trading system based on premium tabs, they would be pay to win.
Come on, you are just moving the goal posts.
Why would they be P2W if they were automated and offline? What is the win condition and how would this help achive it?
Your personal interest in trading is irrelevant. That some people can get rich and still lack the skill to survive is irrelevant. That some people with OP gear ask for help is irrelevant.
loot boxes being a moral issue, seems to be the consensus. Where you have placed yourself on the moral scale is going to be the determining factor on what stance you take on them.
The way this game is designed, each time you defeat a mob, gives the same psychological and or physiological effect as pulling the lever on a slot machine. you don't know whether it is going to drop something of great value, or nothing of worth. When something of great value does drop, most people experience an actual physiological/psychological response. This is inherently the same as a loot box, except for the fact that it doesn't cost you any money to achieve.
Or does it?
As been well documented in the research, games which have systems designed to trigger phycological responses can have detrimental effects on a persons life. They can cost a person personally, professionally and even physically. It has been documented to destroy people, families and even result in death.
If loot boxes are morally repugnant because of the damage they cause, then what defense is there for the game itself? Who is the more responsible, The guy who grows agave knowing it is going to be used to create tequila, or the guy who makes tequila? Look how tricky this becomes.
If you are basing your moral stance on possible end results, the deeper you delve into the issue the harder it is to separate the game from the loot boxes. Morally they are the same.
Counter to popular opinion time does not equal money.
Offering the opportunity to spend ones free time to get a particular psychological response is not the same as offering the opportunity to spend ones money for that psychological response.
Offering the opportunity to spend ones disposable income to get a particular phycological response is morally different than offering the same result for their spare time?
This only seems to become a moral issue when taken to excess, which can be done in either scenario.
What if they restricted loot box purchases to 5 boxes a week? Would that make them morally acceptable? If people who share your moral stance agreed to this, so that people could not spend themselves into trouble, then would it also be your moral duty to restrict a persons time spent in game?
Last edited by Xtorma#4606 on Jan 2, 2019, 10:35:37 AM
Offering the opportunity to spend ones disposable income to get a particular phycological response is morally different than offering the same result for their spare time?
Ofcourse it's different. They are two completely different things.
"
Xtorma wrote:
What if they restricted loot box purchases to 5 boxes a week? Would that make them morally acceptable?
It would make them more morally acceptable.
"
Xtorma wrote:
If people who share your moral stance agreed to this, so that people could not spend themselves into trouble, then would it also be your moral duty to restrict a persons time spent in game?
loot boxes being a moral issue, seems to be the consensus. Where you have placed yourself on the moral scale is going to be the determining factor on what stance you take on them.
The way this game is designed, each time you defeat a mob, gives the same psychological and or physiological effect as pulling the lever on a slot machine. you don't know whether it is going to drop something of great value, or nothing of worth. When something of great value does drop, most people experience an actual physiological/psychological response. This is inherently the same as a loot box, except for the fact that it doesn't cost you any money to achieve.
Or does it?
As been well documented in the research, games which have systems designed to trigger phycological responses can have detrimental effects on a persons life. They can cost a person personally, professionally and even physically. It has been documented to destroy people, families and even result in death.
If loot boxes are morally repugnant because of the damage they cause, then what defense is there for the game itself? Who is the more responsible, The guy who grows agave knowing it is going to be used to create tequila, or the guy who makes tequila? Look how tricky this becomes.
If you are basing your moral stance on possible end results, the deeper you delve into the issue the harder it is to separate the game from the loot boxes. Morally they are the same.
Counter to popular opinion time does not equal money.
Offering the opportunity to spend ones free time to get a particular psychological response is not the same as offering the opportunity to spend ones money for that psychological response.
Offering the opportunity to spend ones disposable income to get a particular phycological response is morally different than offering the same result for their spare time?
This only seems to become a moral issue when taken to excess, which can be done in either scenario.
What if they restricted loot box purchases to 5 boxes a week? Would that make them morally acceptable? If people who share your moral stance agreed to this, so that people could not spend themselves into trouble, then would it also be your moral duty to restrict a persons time spent in game?
This particular defense of loot boxes is extremely bizarre.
Why would they be P2W if they were automated and offline? What is the win condition and how would this help achive it?
for the average player, more currency means more endgame access cause the majority buys maps and uses "services".
the current situation is that selling some few high price items you find from playing alot nets you more currency than selling alot of junk in alot of tabs.
if selling and buying is automatised, you can play while getting rich. selling junk with trade tabs would lose it's "diminishing returns" effect. having more would equal of you selling more without any more effort (except maybe pricing items).
in general, the question if more whealth does contribute to you winning the game is quite worth a different thread :)
uhm, yes, last post here in that regard
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
Last edited by vio#1992 on Jan 2, 2019, 11:05:12 AM
Why would they be P2W if they were automated and offline? What is the win condition and how would this help achive it?
for the average player, more currency means more endgame access cause the majority buys maps and uses "services".
the current situation is that selling some few high price items you find from playing alot nets you more currency than selling alot of junk in alot of tabs.
if selling and buying is automatised, you can play while getting rich. selling junk with trade tabs would lose it's "diminishing returns" effect. having more would equal of you selling more without any more effort (except maybe pricing items).
in general, the question if more whealth does contribute to you winning the game is quite worth a different thread :)
You can play while getting rich as it is. TP:ing to town and sell something from a premium tab does not take longer than than finding the currency you got from the trade, or the trade would not happen in the first place.
Any win condition that would be fulfilled easier with offline automated trade is also fulfilled easier with a premium tab. As proven previously, diminishing returns is not a criteria for P2W. So it is a FACT that if automated and offline sales are P2W by your criteria then so are premium tabs.
You have nothing to gain by denying this. Just accept that you were wrong and feel better.
Last edited by Sickness#1007 on Jan 2, 2019, 11:22:31 AM
That said, to the people who continue talking about p2w: Stop. Go make your own fucking thread. It's not hard to do. I promise.
Protip: "Hey man, it's my last post on the topic, I just wanted to make sure I got the last word so the other guy looks worse" keeps the problem rolling. RECOGNIZE what you are doing, and please stop.
Some people really don't understand what off-topic means. This thread should be locked to prevent stupids from continueing nonsense off-topic blabber.
Loot boxes are glorified gambling, that case was closed 10 pages ago.
ofc claiming to be the "winner" clearly proofs you are right and the others were wrong.
the funny thing is there are good arguments for both sides,yet you are too immature to accept that.
stating your opinion as a fact only makes you look bad.
That said, to the people who continue talking about p2w: Stop. Go make your own fucking thread. It's not hard to do. I promise.
Protip: "Hey man, it's my last post on the topic, I just wanted to make sure I got the last word so the other guy looks worse" keeps the problem rolling. RECOGNIZE what you are doing, and please stop.
