What's up with the "Pay to play" node in Star Lord event.

Fightmastermpq

JVReal said:

Fightmastermpq said:

It's a very simple question really - are 5* essential nodes acceptable?  Should there be content gated off behind a 5* RNG wall?  You can't earn 5* covers.  All you can earn is a chance to pull them, so should they be required to access all content?  I would have thought the vast majority of the playerbase would agree that no - it's unfair to require players to have 5*s earn all the rewards that the game has to offer, but I guess as usual I'm in disagreement with most of the forums.

That's disingenuous.  It's not a simple question.  Are toll roads acceptable? Yes or No?  Now put that toll road at the entrance to a Hospital Emergency room... is it acceptable now?  Is hitting someone acceptable? Yes or No?  Is it self defense or domestic abuse or child abuse or boxing or MMA?

You are over-complicating it for your arguments sake, then trying to over-simplify the question to get the answer you want.

5* Essentials are setting the precedent for paygating content...etc, when this one is gating one node that is irrelevant to the success of the PVE.

You ask if 5* Essentials are ok... and if someone says "Yes" because in this situation it is... you'll go on about how it can then be used to gate content in the future, etc.

It is a troublesome action to be sure, and I was irritated by it at first, but when I realized it did not impact progression or non-existent placement, I was ok with it.

When it is actually used to block progress, I will not be ok with it.

It's not disingenuous at all.  Just like I take the stance that there should be no 5* essential nodes since the entire tier is behind an RNG paygate, I'm sure there are people out there that would take the stance that no toll roads are acceptable for whatever reason they have.  Your response to my question is just different from what I was expecting.  Yes you think it is acceptable to have some content behind a paywall provided it doesn't impact progression or placement.  It's OK for you to have that opinion, I'm just shocked that so many share your opinion.

Perhaps our disconnect comes in how you measure progress. Seems like your belief is that progress is defined only through progression and placement rewards, where for me I look at my roster as a whole and how I am able to use that roster to better achieve progression/placement rewards.  So for me a 1-time node worth 5k ISO is no trivial matter.  Lots of people log in to earn less than that in DDQ every day.  Grinding out an additional 5k ISO beyond what you would earn under normal play is no trivial matter - the timing of this being particularly poor as for me it came after I had shielded through the end of the season.  So I couldn't even go in and grind out the 5k ISO in shield sim (ugh anyway, right?)  But IMO the discussion over what is or isn't trivial should be secondary to whether or not the practice is acceptable in the first place.  If you just remove the 5* gate the problem goes away.  Tie it to the 3* SL that everyone was given the opportunity to earn - or any version of SL as they do in the essentials for some (all?) of the boss events.

Phumade

UNC_Samurai said:

Just wait until people figure out that you have to purchase an electronic device of some sort just to access this game!  OMG 100% of this content is now behind a paywall!!1!1!!!

Right an all of our efforts to make technology available to disadvantaged and underprivileged youth/nations is superfluous.  If they really want access to internet, they should just cut out a few meals a week.

LOL

I know that is not the insinuation that your making.

But its pretty simple for me

Do you think making a Day 3 5* release  a requirement to play the node arises to the level of "pay to play"?

Put all the other "Value"/ subjective judgement of the worth of the content aside.  Does this meet the mechanical requirements to be pay to play?

  Yes, but....

Fine, I don't really care about the but part.  if you want to say 5k is de minimis, fine.  you want to say 10k is minor, fine IDC.

Ultimately, I'm not interested in determining what is and isn't "significant or substantial" game.  I'm fine with allowing the forum, community or lowest common denominator make that determination with their wallets or time.

But I am very interested in learning what qualifies as a "locking" mechanism.
Honestly, does any one disagree with the mechanics of how "pay to play" would be implemented in MPQ?

I also hear lots of people making attacks on my value judgement / time / attention to detail.  Hey all I can say is I have a graduate education with a legal background.  I spend all day reading documents and considering the implications and intent of what people say/mean.  Listening to everyone's arguments and breaking down their concerns is as natural to me as making match-5 are to you.

And to be honest,  I think I've been very fair and open minded about considering how people try to differentiate the situation from more obvious or egregious scenarios.  I've acknowledge many differing viewpoints on the value content.

If you think I've misread/misunderstood how the node operates, then feel free to explain what I've missed.

If your disagreement is based on the value of the node/content/ and or what nodes lie beyond.  Then I accept your viewpoint/concerns at face value and continue to send your vitriol my way via #awwSick

To reiterate my viewpoint.

This node is the first example of a "play to pay" mechanic in the history of the game.  While the "stakes" are relatively minor, I believe that this sets a poor precedent on how future content should be rolled out, and the specific mechanic of gating a node with a newly released 5* character should be immediately condemned. 

End viewpoint.

I see many of you keep referring to essential chars and or DDQ.  I've created a seperate thread to discuss those issue.  But to be crystal clear.

1.  While essential nodes should reward players for prior skill,  I don't believe that essential nodes should lock out competitive players from being top 50 competitive.

2.  I agree that if we can show that an essential/ ddq rotation features an essential that has been vaulted or unavailable to players the the devs should review that essential/rotation and look for opportunities for players to earn that char before featuring them in a node that awards significant content. 

NewMcG

Phumade said:

UNC_Samurai said:

Just wait until people figure out that you have to purchase an electronic device of some sort just to access this game!  OMG 100% of this content is now behind a paywall!!1!1!!!

Right an all of our efforts to make technology available to disadvantaged and underprivileged youth/nations is superfluous.  If they really want access to internet, they should just cut out a few meals a week.

LOL

I know that is not the insinuation that your making.

But its pretty simple for me

Do you think making a Day 3 5* release  a requirement to play the node arises to the level of "pay to play"?

Put all the other "Value"/ subjective judgement of the worth of the content aside.  Does this meet the mechanical requirements to be pay to play?

  Yes, but....

Fine, I don't really care about the but part.  if you want to say 5k is de minimis, fine.  you want to say 10k is minor, fine IDC.

Ultimately, I'm not interested in determining what is and isn't "significant or substantial" game.  I'm fine with allowing the forum, community or lowest common denominator make that determination with their wallets or time.

But I am very interested in learning what qualifies as a "locking" mechanism.
Honestly, does any one disagree with the mechanics of how "pay to play" would be implemented in MPQ?

I also hear lots of people making attacks on my value judgement / time / attention to detail.  Hey all I can say is I have a graduate education with a legal background.  I spend all day reading documents and considering the implications and intent of what people say/mean.  Listening to everyone's arguments and breaking down their concerns is as natural to me as making match-5 are to you.

And to be honest,  I think I've been very fair and open minded about considering how people try to differentiate the situation from more obvious or egregious scenarios.  I've acknowledge many differing viewpoints on the value content.

If you think I've misread/misunderstood how the node operates, then feel free to explain what I've missed.

If your disagreement is based on the value of the node/content/ and or what nodes lie beyond.  Then I accept your viewpoint/concerns at face value and continue to send your vitriol my way via #awwSick

To reiterate my viewpoint.

This node is the first example of a "play to pay" mechanic in the history of the game.  While the "stakes" are relatively minor, I believe that this sets a poor precedent on how future content should be rolled out, and the specific mechanic of gating a node with a newly released 5* character should be immediately condemned. 

End viewpoint.

I see many of you keep referring to essential chars and or DDQ.  I've created a seperate thread to discuss those issue.  But to be crystal clear.

1.  While essential nodes should reward players for prior skill,  I don't believe that essential nodes should lock out competitive players from being top 50 competitive.

2.  I agree that if we can show that an essential/ ddq rotation features an essential that has been vaulted or unavailable to players the the devs should review that essential/rotation and look for opportunities for players to earn that char before featuring them in a node that awards significant content. 

I'm just really finding it hilarious when you make claims like "well, if they gave something like 20 tokens I'd be OK with it". That STILL would be "pay to play" by your definition, because it still isn't a GUARANTEED cover. It's unlikely to not pull a 5* Star Lord (or Star load, as your device likes to refer to him) on that many pulls, but there are certainly those who wouldn't, just given the laws of probability. You can't have it both ways. Just because the way it went this time had worse odds, doesn't mean that making the odds somewhat better makes it not "pay to play" by the definition you yourself are trying to create.

Phumade

New McG said:

I'm just really finding it hilarious when you make claims like "well, if they gave something like 20 tokens I'd be OK with it". That STILL would be "pay to play" by your definition, because it still isn't a GUARANTEED cover. It's unlikely to not pull a 5* Star Lord (or Star load, as your device likes to refer to him) on that many pulls, but there are certainly those who wouldn't, just given the laws of probability. You can't have it both ways. Just because the way it went this time had worse odds, doesn't mean that making the odds somewhat better makes it not "pay to play" by the definition you yourself are trying to create.

Sigh,  Are you really gonna make this argument on the basis of Math?  You can easily prove that multiple 10% tokens will eventually add to a probability of 1 at 99% confidence level.  And I think its actually quite fair to say that once you past the pull threshold, even 1% random tokens can be said to guarantee a cover.  And to be clear,  if your under that pull threshold, that cover cannot be said to be "guaranteed"

Is that number 1 token?  LOL no,  is it 4 tokens?  No,  Will 100 token pulls in a 10% token guarantee a 5*?  Yeah I'm pretty sure the math works in your favor .

You make the whole analysis to be some some black/white issue.  Of course its not.  The objective question of what is the locking mechanism (which is where I'm trying to focus the thread discussion) is fairly discreet and should be definable.  Either the mechanism screens the player or it doesn't.  If you want to argue that the random nature of the token that's fine,  but Mathematics provides many tools for analyzing of random phenoma and I'll go ahead and work on some probability proofs.

The subjective question of whether the lock  + the content rises to the level of "paygate" can certainly be viewed on the continuum of  okay to Not okay.  and from that p.o.v.  I think its pretty fair to say that you view 5k iso as minimal or trivial content?  If I miss-characterized your POV then I'm sorry and I'll try to put it into its appropriate perspective.

In any case,  I think we all understand your perspective on how you value the node contents.  I'll go ahead and work on the math constructs to determine how many pulls in a 10% store effectively guaranteed a 5*

NewMcG

Phumade said:

New McG said:

I'm just really finding it hilarious when you make claims like "well, if they gave something like 20 tokens I'd be OK with it". That STILL would be "pay to play" by your definition, because it still isn't a GUARANTEED cover. It's unlikely to not pull a 5* Star Lord (or Star load, as your device likes to refer to him) on that many pulls, but there are certainly those who wouldn't, just given the laws of probability. You can't have it both ways. Just because the way it went this time had worse odds, doesn't mean that making the odds somewhat better makes it not "pay to play" by the definition you yourself are trying to create.

Sigh,  Are you really gonna make this argument on the basis of Math?  You can easily prove that multiple 10% tokens will eventually add to a probability of 1 at 99% confidence level.  And I think its actually quite fair to say that once you past the pull threshold, even 1% random tokens can be said to guarantee a cover.  And to be clear,  if your under that pull threshold, that cover cannot be said to be "guaranteed"

Is that number 1 token?  LOL no,  is it 4 tokens?  No,  Will 100 token pulls in a 10% token guarantee a 5*?  Yeah I'm pretty sure the math works in your favor .

You make the whole analysis to be some some black/white issue.  Of course its not.  The objective question of what is the locking mechanism (which is where I'm trying to focus the thread discussion) is fairly discreet and should be definable.  Either the mechanism screens the player or it doesn't.  If you want to argue that the random nature of the token that's fine,  but Mathematics provides many tools for analyzing of random phenoma and I'll go ahead and work on some probability proofs.

The subjective question of whether the lock  + the content rises to the level of "paygate" can certainly be viewed on the continuum of  okay to Not okay.  and from that p.o.v.  I think its pretty fair to say that you view 5k iso as minimal or trivial content?  If I miss-characterized your POV then I'm sorry and I'll try to put it into its appropriate perspective.

In any case,  I think we all understand your perspective on how you value the node contents.  I'll go ahead and work on the math constructs to determine how many pulls in a 10% store effectively guaranteed a 5*

If you just want it "in your favor" then 7 pulls will get you to a roughly 53% chance of getting the cover. Math done! 

Phumade

Here is the percentage table for the odds of getting a 5* Star Load

Num of tokens		Odds that you will pull 5* Star load
1		10.0%
2		19.0%
3		27.1%
4		34.4%
5		41.0%
6		46.9%
7		52.2%
8		57.0%
9		61.3%
10		65.1%
11		68.6%
12		71.8%
13		74.6%
14		77.1%
15		79.4%
16		81.5%
17		83.3%
18		85.0%
19		86.5%
20		87.8%

the Formula can be expressed as =1 - (9/10)^n Where n represents the number of trials

Here is the link for an explanation of the underlying math
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/428496/probability-of-of-an-event-happening-at-least-once-in-a-sequence-of-independent

So I go back and ask the simple question.

At what percentage does the node cease to be "RNG" gated?  

I've said that number needs to be 100%.  But I'm not here to enforce my dogma on you.  Let the forum pick what they think the consensus % should be and that should be our expectation on the number of tokens.

Anything less that number, then "Lets" agree that the node is "luck" gated.  And that the luck factor can be mitigated by cash.

Borstock

I have no problem with there being content like this as long as it's just an iso or boost bonus. If it were a cover bonus, I would be a bit miffed. 

Pants1000

Before MPQ I played Marvel War of Heroes which had real pay walls.  There were card packs and other items that you could only get with cash.  

One thing I loved about this game was that I could get anything with hero points that I could earn, rather than having to buy.

To me this is more of a luck/rng wall that you could break through by whaling, and behind that wall is 5k ISO, something you can get in under a day of playing.  Slightly annoying, but not worth getting upset about.  

NewMcG

Phumade said:

So I go back and ask the simple question.

At what percentage does the node cease to be "RNG" gated?  

I've said that number needs to be 100%.  But I'm not here to enforce my dogma on you.  Let the forum pick what they think the consensus % should be and that should be our expectation on the number of tokens.

Anything less that number, then "Lets" agree that the node is "luck" gated.  And that the luck factor can be mitigated by cash.

You're the one proposing this silly idea of an "acceptable cutoff point" for these odds, so you tell us. You just said 100%, so even at 20 pulls, there's over 12% of the players who don't have it. If you were one of those, you certainly wouldn't consider the odds "acceptable", despite the vast majority being expected to get one inn that number of pulls. 

(I now kind of wish you had lucked into a Star Lord cover, and this would have never even been mentioned, as hilariously unhinged as this debate now has become. But don't get me wrong, I'm still loving the "star load" references.)

Phumade

New McG said:
You're the one proposing this silly idea of an "acceptable cutoff point" for these odds, so you tell us. You just said 100%, so even at 20 pulls, there's over 12% of the players who don't have it. If you were one of those, you certainly wouldn't consider the odds "acceptable", despite the vast majority being expected to get one inn that number of pulls. 

Yep I think the cutoff should be 100% but I also live in the real world where Biz carry a P/L statement,  people communicate and compromise.

I'll live with a 75% probably to say it isn't "PAYGATE"  What % can you live with? 

NewMcG

Phumade said:

New McG said:
You're the one proposing this silly idea of an "acceptable cutoff point" for these odds, so you tell us. You just said 100%, so even at 20 pulls, there's over 12% of the players who don't have it. If you were one of those, you certainly wouldn't consider the odds "acceptable", despite the vast majority being expected to get one inn that number of pulls. 

Yep I think the cutoff should be 100% but I also live in the real world where Biz carry a P/L statement,  people communicate and compromise.

I'll live with a 75% probably to say it isn't "PAYGATE"  What % can you live with? 

0% is just fine. It's a chunk of iso.

Phumade

New McG said:

Yep I think the cutoff should be 100% but I also live in the real world where Biz carry a P/L statement,  people communicate and compromise. 

I'll live with a 75% probably to say it isn't "PAYGATE"  What % can you live with? 

0% is just fine. It's a chunk of iso.

Fair enough,  from your point of view Players should have a 0 % chance of winning 5* Star Load prior to playing that node.. 

JVReal

And the winner is...

NewMcG

Phumade said:

New McG said:

Yep I think the cutoff should be 100% but I also live in the real world where Biz carry a P/L statement,  people communicate and compromise. 

I'll live with a 75% probably to say it isn't "PAYGATE"  What % can you live with? 

0% is just fine. It's a chunk of iso.

Fair enough,  from your point of view Players should have a 0 % chance of winning 5* Star Load prior to playing that node.. 

That's the amount that anyone should need to be "guaranteed" a cover for it beforehand, yes. It isn't anything vital to anything else in the game. There's no need for it for event progression. There's no story content to the node. There's no hidden easter egg that makes something in the background of the 5th post credits sequence in Guardians Vol. 2 make more sense.

I had my 4 pulls, and came up short. Almost 40% of people who made the same pulls would have gotten one. Good for them, enjoy the iso and the bottom tier 5* they dropped the 1000 HP to roster.