Algorithms be fun, but it's not unheard of, I think the most simple thing was on analysing the stats of your gameplay and using the data to best determine what will be presented and how.
Such companies are just catching up to mainstream marketing where such things (hence the privacy dramas) are core to how things are done.
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
I've heard much on gaming industry dickbaggery, and while some truly disgusting, immoral things come out of those investor meetings, I have to agree with bcbully. These matchmaking patents are easily among the most despicable gaming industry monetization innovations yet. Completely abandoning the very concept of fair play in order to intentionally ruin the player experience at all skill levels just to advertise microtransactions is pure evil. Completely dropping the concept of competition in order to force predetermined win rates and win streaks on players, while not as evil, is just as dangerous to the health of the multiplayer section of the industry.
It's dead easy to draw in PvP players because they thrive on competition and in a sense microtransactions are a type of competition too. This is such a goldmine and the methods will become even more despicable in the future.
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
I've heard much on gaming industry dickbaggery, and while some truly disgusting, immoral things come out of those investor meetings, I have to agree with bcbully. These matchmaking patents are easily among the most despicable gaming industry monetization innovations yet. Completely abandoning the very concept of fair play in order to intentionally ruin the player experience at all skill levels just to advertise microtransactions is pure evil. Completely dropping the concept of competition in order to force predetermined win rates and win streaks on players, while not as evil, is just as dangerous to the health of the multiplayer section of the industry.
It's a matter of gimmicking over gaming. Instead of solely focusing on providing the highest quality video game experience available, they're using gimmicky algorithms to try and frustrate players into purchases.
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
But isn't that like taking the customer care to another level?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
It's dead easy to draw in PvP players because they thrive on competition and in a sense microtransactions are a type of competition too. This is such a goldmine and the methods will become even more despicable in the future.
This is why solo will go and PvE may as well. You can sell MT's in PvE from cosmetics to levelling potions, but the drive to level is not as strong as the drive to win in PvP. I certainly see a future where all games, not just MMO's, have a strong PvP element. With the exception of Indie and a few hold outs like Bethesda.
Newsflash. This is being done to you guys already outside of gaming. It was a matter of time before developers got in on big data and used it for "evil".
I'm not saying it's right or belongs in gaming, but boy oh boy is it happening to every single one of you already.
This is why it's good to hate micro-transactions. It's not the model that's the problem it's what the outside financial assessment agency is telling the developer to do to maximize profits.
Dragon sickness.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
I've heard much on gaming industry dickbaggery, and while some truly disgusting, immoral things come out of those investor meetings, I have to agree with bcbully. These matchmaking patents are easily among the most despicable gaming industry monetization innovations yet. Completely abandoning the very concept of fair play in order to intentionally ruin the player experience at all skill levels just to advertise microtransactions is pure evil. Completely dropping the concept of competition in order to force predetermined win rates and win streaks on players, while not as evil, is just as dangerous to the health of the multiplayer section of the industry.
I really couldn't tell you because I'm not privvy to the existing matchmaking systems. What I think that people are mostly up-in-arms about is that they now have an idea of what COULD be. The reality is that this could have been happening for years now in your favourite games and you would never know any different.
Also, I view competition differently than many on here. I have completely accepted the fact that I will not be a professional gamer. I'm happy in my mediocrity. There are some who believe that IF ONLY they got better stuff, they could compete with the best in the game. I think it's because there is still this idea that professional gamers have no more skill than anyone else, just time, which is laughable. ANYWAY! My point is, there are distinct levels of competition in any game and you will never compete at that highest level without the appropriate skills. I was a pitcher growing up and I was actually the final person cut for Team Ontario. Not once did I say that "If only I had a better glove and better cleats, I could have made it." In fact, It's recognizing that you are ranked #26 in Ontario, and there are 12 province, so considering I might be better than some people in other provinces, let's say that I ranked 100th out of Canada. That doesn't mean I will make the major leagues. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed to play in the minors. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed a scholarship to a US school, or even be considered for a US school. The point is, I feel like people who believe that these types of things ruin competition are dreamers who think that if they only had a better weapon they could compete with the best in the world. Fuck, I'll bet I could have struck out a major leaguer in my time, maybe even a couple times, but not consistently. There is a difference between luck and skill.
Now I'm not advocating for RNG loot boxes here, although I could care less, but I do think that people generally have an overly optimistic perspective of their skills. I mean YouTube is full of videos of these professional gamers just owning people with completely underpowered weapons, pistols, sniping people across the map. So I'm not really convinced on your own point about competition, sorry. I get MANY points about how this type of targeting is predatory, but it's not ruining competition. If probably won't help you jump a tier or two in competition.
Newsflash. This is being done to you guys already outside of gaming. It was a matter of time before developers got in on big data and used it for "evil".
I'm not saying it's right or belongs in gaming, but boy oh boy is it happening to every single one of you already.
This is why it's good to hate micro-transactions. It's not the model that's the problem it's what the outside financial assessment agency is telling the developer to do to maximize profits.
Dragon sickness.
This is why it makes me giggle when someone tries to counter-argue for lootboxes by acting like personal responsibility will make it all go away.
Personal responsibility drowned at the advent of the internet. Anonymity, hidden algorithms, and ultra-smart, targetted marketing and propaganda ensured that. It's not a level playing field, and the deck is continually be stacked more heavily in favor of the big business.
Nobody is immune, because the knowledge required to be so immune would literally require 40 hours a week to learn for all the products that touch our daily lives, digital or otherwise.
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
I've heard much on gaming industry dickbaggery, and while some truly disgusting, immoral things come out of those investor meetings, I have to agree with bcbully. These matchmaking patents are easily among the most despicable gaming industry monetization innovations yet. Completely abandoning the very concept of fair play in order to intentionally ruin the player experience at all skill levels just to advertise microtransactions is pure evil. Completely dropping the concept of competition in order to force predetermined win rates and win streaks on players, while not as evil, is just as dangerous to the health of the multiplayer section of the industry.
I really couldn't tell you because I'm not privvy to the existing matchmaking systems. What I think that people are mostly up-in-arms about is that they now have an idea of what COULD be. The reality is that this could have been happening for years now in your favourite games and you would never know any different.
Also, I view competition differently than many on here. I have completely accepted the fact that I will not be a professional gamer. I'm happy in my mediocrity. There are some who believe that IF ONLY they got better stuff, they could compete with the best in the game. I think it's because there is still this idea that professional gamers have no more skill than anyone else, just time, which is laughable. ANYWAY! My point is, there are distinct levels of competition in any game and you will never compete at that highest level without the appropriate skills. I was a pitcher growing up and I was actually the final person cut for Team Ontario. Not once did I say that "If only I had a better glove and better cleats, I could have made it." In fact, It's recognizing that you are ranked #26 in Ontario, and there are 12 province, so considering I might be better than some people in other provinces, let's say that I ranked 100th out of Canada. That doesn't mean I will make the major leagues. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed to play in the minors. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed a scholarship to a US school, or even be considered for a US school. The point is, I feel like people who believe that these types of things ruin competition are dreamers who think that if they only had a better weapon they could compete with the best in the world. Fuck, I'll bet I could have struck out a major leaguer in my time, maybe even a couple times, but not consistently. There is a difference between luck and skill.
Now I'm not advocating for RNG loot boxes here, although I could care less, but I do think that people generally have an overly optimistic perspective of their skills. I mean YouTube is full of videos of these professional gamers just owning people with completely underpowered weapons, pistols, sniping people across the map. So I'm not really convinced on your own point about competition, sorry. I get MANY points about how this type of targeting is predatory, but it's not ruining competition. If probably won't help you jump a tier or two in competition.
Since you're talking baseball... I'm curious, what do your think about the steroid-fueled home run records? I personally think that they made a mockery of the integrity of the game but I know that some people just don't care.
I think of computer gaming the same way. I care about the integrity of the game play. To me there is very little difference between the cheaters who use 3rd party programs to win and the suits who manipulate elements for profit. It's all asshattery that harms the game's integrity.
For me it has nothing to do with fantasies about being the best. It's a fucked up thing all by itself.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Newsflash. This is being done to you guys already outside of gaming. It was a matter of time before developers got in on big data and used it for "evil".
I'm not saying it's right or belongs in gaming, but boy oh boy is it happening to every single one of you already.
This is why it's good to hate micro-transactions. It's not the model that's the problem it's what the outside financial assessment agency is telling the developer to do to maximize profits.
Dragon sickness.
This is why it makes me giggle when someone tries to counter-argue for lootboxes by acting like personal responsibility will make it all go away.
Personal responsibility drowned at the advent of the internet. Anonymity, hidden algorithms, and ultra-smart, targetted marketing and propaganda ensured that. It's not a level playing field, and the deck is continually be stacked more heavily in favor of the big business.
Nobody is immune, because the knowledge required to be so immune would literally require 40 hours a week to learn for all the products that touch our daily lives, digital or otherwise.
From experience, even knowing how such practices take advantage of you does not necessarily protect you. These things prey on innate human irrationalities (such as the sunk cost fallacy and the fallacy that each loss brings one closer to a win).
All it takes is the right IP with the right bait and the right mechanics to make someone spend more than intended, fully aware that it isn't worth it or likely to work out. For me, that was Fire Emblem Heroes.
This matchmaking shit is easily one the evilest things I’ve heard of in the gaming world.
Really? My guess is that you haven't heard much. I've actually heard of smaller companies (not mentioning anything) which listen to conversations of certain members and then customize cash shop items based on their chats.
I've heard much on gaming industry dickbaggery, and while some truly disgusting, immoral things come out of those investor meetings, I have to agree with bcbully. These matchmaking patents are easily among the most despicable gaming industry monetization innovations yet. Completely abandoning the very concept of fair play in order to intentionally ruin the player experience at all skill levels just to advertise microtransactions is pure evil. Completely dropping the concept of competition in order to force predetermined win rates and win streaks on players, while not as evil, is just as dangerous to the health of the multiplayer section of the industry.
I really couldn't tell you because I'm not privvy to the existing matchmaking systems. What I think that people are mostly up-in-arms about is that they now have an idea of what COULD be. The reality is that this could have been happening for years now in your favourite games and you would never know any different.
Also, I view competition differently than many on here. I have completely accepted the fact that I will not be a professional gamer. I'm happy in my mediocrity. There are some who believe that IF ONLY they got better stuff, they could compete with the best in the game. I think it's because there is still this idea that professional gamers have no more skill than anyone else, just time, which is laughable. ANYWAY! My point is, there are distinct levels of competition in any game and you will never compete at that highest level without the appropriate skills. I was a pitcher growing up and I was actually the final person cut for Team Ontario. Not once did I say that "If only I had a better glove and better cleats, I could have made it." In fact, It's recognizing that you are ranked #26 in Ontario, and there are 12 province, so considering I might be better than some people in other provinces, let's say that I ranked 100th out of Canada. That doesn't mean I will make the major leagues. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed to play in the minors. That doesn't even mean I would be guaranteed a scholarship to a US school, or even be considered for a US school. The point is, I feel like people who believe that these types of things ruin competition are dreamers who think that if they only had a better weapon they could compete with the best in the world. Fuck, I'll bet I could have struck out a major leaguer in my time, maybe even a couple times, but not consistently. There is a difference between luck and skill.
Now I'm not advocating for RNG loot boxes here, although I could care less, but I do think that people generally have an overly optimistic perspective of their skills. I mean YouTube is full of videos of these professional gamers just owning people with completely underpowered weapons, pistols, sniping people across the map. So I'm not really convinced on your own point about competition, sorry. I get MANY points about how this type of targeting is predatory, but it's not ruining competition. If probably won't help you jump a tier or two in competition.
Since you're talking baseball... I'm curious, what do your think about the steroid-fueled home run records? I personally think that they made a mockery of the integrity of the game but I know that some people just don't care.
I think of computer gaming the same way. I care about the integrity of the game play. To me there is very little difference between the cheaters who use 3rd party programs to win and the suits who manipulate elements for profit. It's all asshattery that harms the game's integrity.
For me it has nothing to do with fantasies about being the best. It's a fucked up thing all by itself.
I'm glad you bring that up, actually. This is another one of those perceptual issues. The most home runs hit in an MLB season was this past year, 2017, at a time when anti-doping is, possibly, at it's height. Prior to that, the record was held by the 2000 series, during the steroid era. So here's a question for you, Is it steroids that made the difference? Or is it the mentality of the hitter. In 2017 the populatiry of the shift in baseball has basically led to this idea that a ground ball is an out. You hear many hitters talk about that these days, so it's clearly a focus. So, mentally, they are looking to get the ball in the air. Now, back in the PED era, if you were on steroids, do you think you would have a different mentality when hitting? Why are you taking them? To hit more home runs. So what is your focus at the plate? Hit home runs, get the ball in the air. That's number one. The approach of looking to hit home runs.
Secondly, would be the advantage that steroids give you. Steroids don't help you track a ball and put the bat on the ball, which is a completely different skill set. This is a non-trivial activity at a major league level. Steroids cannot impact swing mechanics and exit velocities (the speed of the ball leaving the bat) is higher than ever, and the record was broken multiple times in 2017. So sound mechanics and a focus on hitting home runs obviously impacts the exit velocity of the ball more than steroids.
Third, overswinging (swinging too hard) will actually introduce bad things into your swing, such as pulling off the ball. So steroids cannot really help you swing harder since the limiting factor is the ability for you to maintain a balanced swing.
Don't get me wrong, I think that steroids may have played a role in the game back in the PED era of baseball, but how much of an impact did they actually play remains to be seen. How much of it was a change in the mental game of the players and how much was it related to the steroids themselves? How much of it was about the players selling out for the long ball? So, on that topic, I think that the reason that it is so contentious is the perception, so it's very much the same here. It's ugly because people believe that it's making a difference even though the actual evidence isn't there to support that idea.
Since you're talking baseball... I'm curious, what do your think about the steroid-fueled home run records? I personally think that they made a mockery of the integrity of the game but I know that some people just don't care.
I think of computer gaming the same way. I care about the integrity of the game play. To me there is very little difference between the cheaters who use 3rd party programs to win and the suits who manipulate elements for profit. It's all asshattery that harms the game's integrity.
For me it has nothing to do with fantasies about being the best. It's a fucked up thing all by itself.
I'm glad you bring that up, actually. This is another one of those perceptual issues. The most home runs hit in an MLB season was this past year, 2017, at a time when anti-doping is, possibly, at it's height. Prior to that, the record was held by the 2000 series, during the steroid era. So here's a question for you, Is it steroids that made the difference? Or is it the mentality of the hitter. In 2017 the populatiry of the shift in baseball has basically led to this idea that a ground ball is an out. You hear many hitters talk about that these days, so it's clearly a focus. So, mentally, they are looking to get the ball in the air. Now, back in the PED era, if you were on steroids, do you think you would have a different mentality when hitting? Why are you taking them? To hit more home runs. So what is your focus at the plate? Hit home runs, get the ball in the air. That's number one. The approach of looking to hit home runs.
Secondly, would be the advantage that steroids give you. Steroids don't help you track a ball and put the bat on the ball, which is a completely different skill set. This is a non-trivial activity at a major league level. Steroids cannot impact swing mechanics and exit velocities (the speed of the ball leaving the bat) is higher than ever, and the record was broken multiple times in 2017. So sound mechanics and a focus on hitting home runs obviously impacts the exit velocity of the ball more than steroids.
Third, overswinging (swinging too hard) will actually introduce bad things into your swing, such as pulling off the ball. So steroids cannot really help you swing harder since the limiting factor is the ability for you to maintain a balanced swing.
Don't get me wrong, I think that steroids may have played a role in the game back in the PED era of baseball, but how much of an impact did they actually play remains to be seen. How much of it was a change in the mental game of the players and how much was it related to the steroids themselves? How much of it was about the players selling out for the long ball? So, on that topic, I think that the reason that it is so contentious is the perception, so it's very much the same here. It's ugly because people believe that it's making a difference even though the actual evidence isn't there to support that idea.
Yes there's more to hitting a home run than having a body like Canseco or Sosa. John Olerud and Ken Grifith Jr. both were great examples of the importance of mechanics. But still, there's a reason why they're called performance enhancing drugs and are banned in all sports: because everything else being relatively equal, they enhance performance.
And you didn't answer my question which was what you personally think about what they do to the integrity of the competition.
A really bad player with a cheat program or P2W cash shop advantages will still be a bad player and can be beat by a good player without the advantages. But that's neither here nor there with respect to issues like integrity and honesty.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Since you're talking baseball... I'm curious, what do your think about the steroid-fueled home run records? I personally think that they made a mockery of the integrity of the game but I know that some people just don't care.
I think of computer gaming the same way. I care about the integrity of the game play. To me there is very little difference between the cheaters who use 3rd party programs to win and the suits who manipulate elements for profit. It's all asshattery that harms the game's integrity.
For me it has nothing to do with fantasies about being the best. It's a fucked up thing all by itself.
I'm glad you bring that up, actually. This is another one of those perceptual issues. The most home runs hit in an MLB season was this past year, 2017, at a time when anti-doping is, possibly, at it's height. Prior to that, the record was held by the 2000 series, during the steroid era. So here's a question for you, Is it steroids that made the difference? Or is it the mentality of the hitter. In 2017 the populatiry of the shift in baseball has basically led to this idea that a ground ball is an out. You hear many hitters talk about that these days, so it's clearly a focus. So, mentally, they are looking to get the ball in the air. Now, back in the PED era, if you were on steroids, do you think you would have a different mentality when hitting? Why are you taking them? To hit more home runs. So what is your focus at the plate? Hit home runs, get the ball in the air. That's number one. The approach of looking to hit home runs.
Secondly, would be the advantage that steroids give you. Steroids don't help you track a ball and put the bat on the ball, which is a completely different skill set. This is a non-trivial activity at a major league level. Steroids cannot impact swing mechanics and exit velocities (the speed of the ball leaving the bat) is higher than ever, and the record was broken multiple times in 2017. So sound mechanics and a focus on hitting home runs obviously impacts the exit velocity of the ball more than steroids.
Third, overswinging (swinging too hard) will actually introduce bad things into your swing, such as pulling off the ball. So steroids cannot really help you swing harder since the limiting factor is the ability for you to maintain a balanced swing.
Don't get me wrong, I think that steroids may have played a role in the game back in the PED era of baseball, but how much of an impact did they actually play remains to be seen. How much of it was a change in the mental game of the players and how much was it related to the steroids themselves? How much of it was about the players selling out for the long ball? So, on that topic, I think that the reason that it is so contentious is the perception, so it's very much the same here. It's ugly because people believe that it's making a difference even though the actual evidence isn't there to support that idea.
Yes there's more to hitting a home run than having a body like Canseco or Sosa. John Olerud and Ken Grifith Jr. both were great examples of the importance of mechanics. But still, there's a reason why they're called performance enhancing drugs and are banned in all sports: because everything else being relatively equal, they enhance performance.
And you didn't answer my question which was what you personally think about what they do to the integrity of the competition.
A really bad player with a cheat program or P2W cash shop advantages will still be a bad player and can be beat by a good player without the advantages. But that's neither here nor there with respect to issues like integrity and honesty.
I agree, there's no doubt that they have some impact and that's why they are banned. I don't disagree there. That's why it's cheating.
With regards to games, I think there is a significant difference between a cheat program and a cash shop, even a P2W cash shop. A cheat program literally dictates you winning, whereas cash shops provide augments to your gameplay. I don't know of many, or any, competitive games that sell direct P2W, though. I'm talking about items which give direct statistical advantage over another (like increased speed, strength, etc.).
So, cheat programs are a bannable offense in games like PEDs are a bannable offense in sports. Does cheating impact the integrity of the game? On the whole, yes it does. However, does equipment impact the integrity of a sport? Nope! Not at all! In fact, I doubt you'd see a MLB player hitting with a bat he picked up at Walmart. He could! But he wouldn't. Why? It would impact his performance. So this is very much like a cash shop, right? The expectation is that if you are playing competitively then you'd have equipment that suits your game. Maybe that IS the $20 Walmart bat, maybe that's right for you, or maybe that's a $260 Marucci bat that was custom built to your own specifications. Some have a heavier bat (say 38oz versus 32oz), some have a longer bat (say 36" vs 32"). A larger bat obviously covers more plate, so it's better, right? What level of advantage does that provide? I can't say, but it's obviously negligible or there would be a standard wrapped around it (like there already are in some cases).
Also, with cash shops I don't think there is anything that cannot be earned, right? So, in theory, these people could earn everything in time. Or they can pay to accelerate that. It's just the same time vs money argument that's argued since cash shops even came about. So I'll rebut with the same tired old argument that I did before, what happened before cash shops? The black market! So if they did away with cash shops today, would it be impossible for me to pay for an advantage? Nope! I can simply pay some guy over in China to get me all the cool shit that I need in the game. If you need an evidence of this, then just do a quick google search. So, in the end, would I rather give my money to the publisher? Yeah, probably. My one and only complaint is the RNG. I mean if I have a specific playstyle, and I do, then I likely know what would complement that playstyle and I'd like to just buy the items. However, the community would scream P2W over that, right? So it's a bit of a double-edged sword, unfortunately. So, instead, while I'd LOVE some fancy weapon that would complement my playing style, I won't do RNG for it because I'm just a scrub anyway. I'll just play with the $20 bat
I agree, there's no doubt that they have some impact and that's why they are banned. I don't disagree there. That's why it's cheating.
With regards to games, I think there is a significant difference between a cheat program and a cash shop, even a P2W cash shop. A cheat program literally dictates you winning, whereas cash shops provide augments to your gameplay. I don't know of many, or any, competitive games that sell direct P2W, though. I'm talking about items which give direct statistical advantage over another (like increased speed, strength, etc.).
So, cheat programs are a bannable offense in games like PEDs are a bannable offense in sports. Does cheating impact the integrity of the game? On the whole, yes it does. However, does equipment impact the integrity of a sport? Nope! Not at all! In fact, I doubt you'd see a MLB player hitting with a bat he picked up at Walmart. He could! But he wouldn't. Why? It would impact his performance. So this is very much like a cash shop, right? The expectation is that if you are playing competitively then you'd have equipment that suits your game. Maybe that IS the $20 Walmart bat, maybe that's right for you, or maybe that's a $260 Marucci bat that was custom built to your own specifications. Some have a heavier bat (say 38oz versus 32oz), some have a longer bat (say 36" vs 32"). A larger bat obviously covers more plate, so it's better, right? What level of advantage does that provide? I can't say, but it's obviously negligible or there would be a standard wrapped around it (like there already are in some cases).
Also, with cash shops I don't think there is anything that cannot be earned, right? So, in theory, these people could earn everything in time. Or they can pay to accelerate that. It's just the same time vs money argument that's argued since cash shops even came about. So I'll rebut with the same tired old argument that I did before, what happened before cash shops? The black market! So if they did away with cash shops today, would it be impossible for me to pay for an advantage? Nope! I can simply pay some guy over in China to get me all the cool shit that I need in the game. If you need an evidence of this, then just do a quick google search. So, in the end, would I rather give my money to the publisher? Yeah, probably. My one and only complaint is the RNG. I mean if I have a specific playstyle, and I do, then I likely know what would complement that playstyle and I'd like to just buy the items. However, the community would scream P2W over that, right? So it's a bit of a double-edged sword, unfortunately. So, instead, while I'd LOVE some fancy weapon that would complement my playing style, I won't do RNG for it because I'm just a scrub anyway. I'll just play with the $20 bat
Well buying those advantages in the black market in the old days was also considered cheating and something you could get banned for. The fact that some games now sell them to you doesn't change anything except the possibility of disciplinary action. It's still a way around the game playing method of getting those items. We can argue that some games make getting the specific item you want a pain in the ass but that's just an issue of game design and does not excuse doing an end run. The honest solution to that would be a redesign of the way you get the item to make it more reasonable.
The RNG roadblock to obtaining highly desirable items is also not binary. I've seen many solutions to that over the years including earning tokens that you can use to buy exactly what you want instead of getting drops.
Of course, games that sell those things in a cash shop that can also be obtained through game play have no financial incentive for redesigning gearing up to make it more reasonable. The opposite is true. "Inconvenience by design" is very much a thing in those games.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I agree, there's no doubt that they have some impact and that's why they are banned. I don't disagree there. That's why it's cheating.
With regards to games, I think there is a significant difference between a cheat program and a cash shop, even a P2W cash shop. A cheat program literally dictates you winning, whereas cash shops provide augments to your gameplay. I don't know of many, or any, competitive games that sell direct P2W, though. I'm talking about items which give direct statistical advantage over another (like increased speed, strength, etc.).
So, cheat programs are a bannable offense in games like PEDs are a bannable offense in sports. Does cheating impact the integrity of the game? On the whole, yes it does. However, does equipment impact the integrity of a sport? Nope! Not at all! In fact, I doubt you'd see a MLB player hitting with a bat he picked up at Walmart. He could! But he wouldn't. Why? It would impact his performance. So this is very much like a cash shop, right? The expectation is that if you are playing competitively then you'd have equipment that suits your game. Maybe that IS the $20 Walmart bat, maybe that's right for you, or maybe that's a $260 Marucci bat that was custom built to your own specifications. Some have a heavier bat (say 38oz versus 32oz), some have a longer bat (say 36" vs 32"). A larger bat obviously covers more plate, so it's better, right? What level of advantage does that provide? I can't say, but it's obviously negligible or there would be a standard wrapped around it (like there already are in some cases).
Also, with cash shops I don't think there is anything that cannot be earned, right? So, in theory, these people could earn everything in time. Or they can pay to accelerate that. It's just the same time vs money argument that's argued since cash shops even came about. So I'll rebut with the same tired old argument that I did before, what happened before cash shops? The black market! So if they did away with cash shops today, would it be impossible for me to pay for an advantage? Nope! I can simply pay some guy over in China to get me all the cool shit that I need in the game. If you need an evidence of this, then just do a quick google search. So, in the end, would I rather give my money to the publisher? Yeah, probably. My one and only complaint is the RNG. I mean if I have a specific playstyle, and I do, then I likely know what would complement that playstyle and I'd like to just buy the items. However, the community would scream P2W over that, right? So it's a bit of a double-edged sword, unfortunately. So, instead, while I'd LOVE some fancy weapon that would complement my playing style, I won't do RNG for it because I'm just a scrub anyway. I'll just play with the $20 bat
Well buying those advantages in the black market in the old days was also considered cheating and something you could get banned for. The fact that some games now sell them to you doesn't change anything except the possibility of disciplinary action. It's still a way around the game playing method of getting those items. We can argue that some games make getting the specific item you want a pain in the ass but that's just an issue of game design and does not excuse doing an end run. The honest solution to that would be a redesign of the way you get the item to make it more reasonable.
The RNG roadblock to obtaining highly desirable items is also not binary. I've seen many solutions to that over the years including earning tokens that you can use to buy exactly what you want instead of getting drops.
Of course, games that sell those things in a cash shop that can also be obtained through game play have no financial incentive for redesigning gearing up to make it more reasonable. The opposite is true. "Inconvenience by design" is very much a thing in those games.
I think that we definitely align on your last point. I do agree that game designs have come to a point where there is plenty of inconvenience involved with the progression. It's one of the reasons I don't play much multiplayer anymore. There is a very real, non-trivial time commitment required for nearly every game. Gone are the days when I could play the COD Campaign and reach the top tier of multiplayer in a week. Now you require hundreds of hours and progression is seemingly endless. That being said, I can't help but wonder if this is a result of core gamers complaining endlessly for so long. Also, in order for that to happen, organizations introduce the cash shop as a means of speeding progression for those who aren't the core gamers. I think that's super nice of them, I mean they might make a little extra cash, but they are probably doing it for the people
Sadly, I don't think it'll be up to them in the end. If EA tells them to push it in, it will be going in.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I got schooled first hand how skill rules when I watch my son clean up in D2 Crucible with my Xbox controller because he's more comfortable with it than kb/m. I couldn't let him play too long or people would think I could pull that off even with a kb/m.
P2W is more like "pay to buy a handicap". It might give an advantage, but like in a lot of sports I've seen teams and players with handicaps and spreads fall flat. Why? Because the handicap doesn't actually make up for the underdog's weaker skills. Sometimes people don't even have the ability to take advantage of whatever handicap they've been given and they piss that advantage away.
Anyone ever play a strategy game with someone who blows their trump cards and units way too early? You can give someone better units but that doesn't mean they get how to use those tools. I agree with CrazKanuk, maybe people think they're going to be rockstars with that item, but they end up looking like drunken karaoke.
It's hard to take "pvp concerns" seriously when people are complaining about advantage in genres where playing longer lends an inherent advantage and there are power curves. When you get rid of all those power curves and time sink advantages I'll take your p2w whining more seriously.
I stopped playing against my son years ago because it became an exercise in futility and frustration. This is why I never let them win, I knew this day would come
That being said, it's funny because when we did used to play I would always yell at him when he first started REALLY kicking my ass.
"Stop using the shotgun you fuck'n cheesy bastard!"..... "Stop using the sniper, that's so cheesy!!!"
So maybe it's a phased thing.
Phase 1 - In the dreamer phase, you think that you're good enough to compete with the best. I mean they have the same body parts as you, so if you work hard, you can do anything! This is a distinctly American idea. Nobody in Canada ever tells their kid that they can grow up to be Prime Minister if they work hard. Also, our Olympians strive for personal bests instead of medals.
Phase 2 - In the disillusionment phase, you think that there must be something impacting your ability to be as good as others. Blame something! Quick!
Phase 3 - In the acceptance phase, you have accepted that people are better than you. Maybe you spent $10,000 to get the best of everything and still rank 100,000 in the world, or maybe you had a much less costly revelation. At this point it's likely that you'll either accept it and have fun continuing to play, or you'll reject it and move onto another game that isn't so P2W, where you skills will most likely bring you to the top of the world rankings
@CrazKanuk I knew my days were numbered when I got the beat down in SW: Force Unleashed. FU Darth Vader!
There is this odd idea that pro sports is a level playing field, but it's not. Franchises spend tons of money on facilities, programs, and staff to hone and train their athletes. Money influences sports - pro, amateur, college, etc.
PEDs are bad because they're unhealthy and dangerous. They're objectionable because they're against the rules and using them is cheating. The objection isn't over the advantage they give, it's over the unregulated and unsanctioned influence they may have. Other players object because they can't compete safely and legally.
If there was a safe "enhancement" method that was sanctioned and approved by a league then I would have no problem with them. I have a feeling the players wouldn't care either in that case.
In some regards there are. There are plenty of pills, post-workout recovery drinks, etc. which provide an advantage to some degree because your body would be less worn over the course of a long season.
I got schooled first hand how skill rules when I watch my son clean up in D2 Crucible with my Xbox controller because he's more comfortable with it than kb/m. I couldn't let him play too long or people would think I could pull that off even with a kb/m.
P2W is more like "pay to buy a handicap". It might give an advantage, but like in a lot of sports I've seen teams and players with handicaps and spreads fall flat. Why? Because the handicap doesn't actually make up for the underdog's weaker skills. Sometimes people don't even have the ability to take advantage of whatever handicap they've been given and they piss that advantage away.
Anyone ever play a strategy game with someone who blows their trump cards and units way too early? You can give someone better units but that doesn't mean they get how to use those tools. I agree with CrazKanuk, maybe people think they're going to be rockstars with that item, but they end up looking like drunken karaoke.
It's hard to take "pvp concerns" seriously when people are complaining about advantage in genres where playing longer lends an inherent advantage and there are power curves. When you get rid of all those power curves and time sink advantages I'll take your p2w whining more seriously.
Time accrues equally for everyone. Money doesn't. That single point is the key difference to explain why your last paragraph is faulty logic. The two resources aren't very similar, despite the old business saying.
The rest of your post seems to indicate that, because the items don't 100% guarantee the win for the player, it's okay. But that's not really applicable because it's reductio ad absurdum. Nothing short of literally being handed the win directly guarantees success, even if you receive an unfair advantage.
Having 12 players on the field playing football is an unfair advantage, but it doesn't guarantee a win, so why care, right? No, nobody would agree with that. Same for family board game night, for another example: starting halfway across the board doesn't technically mean you're guaranteed to win, so no big deal? I highly doubt many would agree.
This idea that video games are such a unique bird as to warrant enjoying a mentality that absolutely isn't supported in any other realm is false. We can apply general principles of integrity, fair practice, and transparency to this industry, too. Nothing about it makes it so special as to exempt it.
I got schooled first hand how skill rules when I watch my son clean up in D2 Crucible with my Xbox controller because he's more comfortable with it than kb/m. I couldn't let him play too long or people would think I could pull that off even with a kb/m.
P2W is more like "pay to buy a handicap". It might give an advantage, but like in a lot of sports I've seen teams and players with handicaps and spreads fall flat. Why? Because the handicap doesn't actually make up for the underdog's weaker skills. Sometimes people don't even have the ability to take advantage of whatever handicap they've been given and they piss that advantage away.
Anyone ever play a strategy game with someone who blows their trump cards and units way too early? You can give someone better units but that doesn't mean they get how to use those tools. I agree with CrazKanuk, maybe people think they're going to be rockstars with that item, but they end up looking like drunken karaoke.
It's hard to take "pvp concerns" seriously when people are complaining about advantage in genres where playing longer lends an inherent advantage and there are power curves. When you get rid of all those power curves and time sink advantages I'll take your p2w whining more seriously.
Time accrues equally for everyone. Money doesn't. That single point is the key difference to explain why your last paragraph is faulty logic. The two resources aren't very similar, despite the old business saying.
The rest of your post seems to indicate that, because the items don't 100% guarantee the win for the player, it's okay. But that's not really applicable because it's reductio ad absurdum. Nothing short of literally being handed the win directly guarantees success, even if you receive an unfair advantage.
Having 12 players on the field playing football is an unfair advantage, but it doesn't guarantee a win, so why care, right? No, nobody would agree with that. Same for family board game night, for another example: starting halfway across the board doesn't technically mean you're guaranteed to win, so no big deal? I highly doubt many would agree.
This idea that video games are such a unique bird as to warrant enjoying a mentality that absolutely isn't supported in any other realm is false. We can apply general principles of integrity, fair practice, and transparency to this industry, too. Nothing about it makes it so special as to exempt it.
actually time and money are the same, only diference is the value each one have for his time
Once again, microtransactions are killing the fun in gaming. These companies using MT's will attempt to milk as much out of the player base, at the expanse of fun, as they can get. I will avoid MT's thank you very much.
I got schooled first hand how skill rules when I watch my son clean up in D2 Crucible with my Xbox controller because he's more comfortable with it than kb/m. I couldn't let him play too long or people would think I could pull that off even with a kb/m.
P2W is more like "pay to buy a handicap". It might give an advantage, but like in a lot of sports I've seen teams and players with handicaps and spreads fall flat. Why? Because the handicap doesn't actually make up for the underdog's weaker skills. Sometimes people don't even have the ability to take advantage of whatever handicap they've been given and they piss that advantage away.
Anyone ever play a strategy game with someone who blows their trump cards and units way too early? You can give someone better units but that doesn't mean they get how to use those tools. I agree with CrazKanuk, maybe people think they're going to be rockstars with that item, but they end up looking like drunken karaoke.
It's hard to take "pvp concerns" seriously when people are complaining about advantage in genres where playing longer lends an inherent advantage and there are power curves. When you get rid of all those power curves and time sink advantages I'll take your p2w whining more seriously.
Time accrues equally for everyone. Money doesn't. That single point is the key difference to explain why your last paragraph is faulty logic. The two resources aren't very similar, despite the old business saying.
The rest of your post seems to indicate that, because the items don't 100% guarantee the win for the player, it's okay. But that's not really applicable because it's reductio ad absurdum. Nothing short of literally being handed the win directly guarantees success, even if you receive an unfair advantage.
Having 12 players on the field playing football is an unfair advantage, but it doesn't guarantee a win, so why care, right? No, nobody would agree with that. Same for family board game night, for another example: starting halfway across the board doesn't technically mean you're guaranteed to win, so no big deal? I highly doubt many would agree.
This idea that video games are such a unique bird as to warrant enjoying a mentality that absolutely isn't supported in any other realm is false. We can apply general principles of integrity, fair practice, and transparency to this industry, too. Nothing about it makes it so special as to exempt it.
actually time and money are the same, only diference is the value each one have for his time
Really? How much interest is that time you got sitting at your local bank accruing?
You looking forward to a raise this year? Gonna have 25 hours every day, instead of just 24?
If nothing short of literally being handed a win guarantees success, then pay to win must not have much of an effect.
The people who get there first in an mmo will always have more time accrued and therefore always have the inherent advantage. That's bad game design. Of course you're so worried about the time problem that you missed the point. The fact that a pvp game has a power curve at all (whether it's time, money, progression, whatever) makes it a competitive joke.
My wife loves to play the old Words with Friends with a few of... her friends (go figure). Some of them moved to WWF 2 which sells power ups, and hints, and all sorts of "cheats" that the first version didn't have. It doesn't matter if Zynga sells them as loot crates or has a matching algorithm to link you to players in order to get you to spend more. The entire premise of the game was ruined when they added progression, power items, and tactical advantages. It's not about doing "words" anymore. It's about meta-tactics and power ups. That's sort of like the difference between real skill based pvp and progression-based power curve pvp.
The people who like the latter are like pve players that like to go steamroll gray zones. They're not good. They don't have much skill (if any at all). They want ezmode where they feel like they've "earned" the right to it. How seriously can you take a pve player who talks about skill and then likes to overpower to trivialize content. It's really not an accomplishment to decimate a raid 75 levels lower than your party.
I don't think EA or Activision are saints that are justified in screwing battleground players. I'm not saying it's okay. I'm saying "whatever". I think competitive pvp players have screwed up the MMORPG genre with their balance and having cosmetic player pay for the game. They can go sleep in the bed they've made for all I care.
If anything it's now working a lot more like real sports with all of its pay to win.
The second sentence is.. Just not consistent with reality. It doesn't have to guarantee a win to destroy competitive integrity. That's... Not really debatable, unless you're debating the reality of competition accepted among pretty much all of humanity.
You act as if I somehow asked for power progression in my competitive games. I didn't. In fact, I've mentioned elsewhere (a while ago now) that, unless the unlocks are sidegrades, it's a bad idea to award players with direct power upgrades in competitive games.
MMORPGs are not just competitive games, though. They're, first and foremost, RPGs. RPGs have, by and large, always had vertical power progression. So, if you want to play something competitive that doesn't place you behind someone who spent more time working on their characters, I would suggest not playing an RPG or sticking to instanced arena/battlegrounds. There's really nothing wrong with that. Trying to change the core of RPG content mechanics? That seems like an exercise in futility at best, an attempt to muddy the waters simply because there's not a good counter-argument at worst.
Nor are real skill based PvP and progression-based power curves mutually exclusive, as implied in your post. See battlegrounds/arenas.
Then you go on to stereotype folks who enjoy RPG progression. Why? That's beneath you. Who ever came to the forums beating their chests that they just completed the raid 75 levels lower than their party? I don't remember ever seeing anyone brag about beating down grey-con mobs. It also seems unrelated to the core issue at debate here.
Finally, you cut your own nose off to spite your face. "I don't like those PvP players anyways, so go on and include those deceptive matchmaking/monetization/marketing practices, I'll go down with this ship as long as they go down tooooooooo!"
Comments
Such companies are just catching up to mainstream marketing where such things (hence the privacy dramas) are core to how things are done.
This is why solo will go and PvE may as well. You can sell MT's in PvE from cosmetics to levelling potions, but the drive to level is not as strong as the drive to win in PvP. I certainly see a future where all games, not just MMO's, have a strong PvP element. With the exception of Indie and a few hold outs like Bethesda.
I'm not saying it's right or belongs in gaming, but boy oh boy is it happening to every single one of you already.
This is why it's good to hate micro-transactions. It's not the model that's the problem it's what the outside financial assessment agency is telling the developer to do to maximize profits.
Dragon sickness.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Personal responsibility drowned at the advent of the internet. Anonymity, hidden algorithms, and ultra-smart, targetted marketing and propaganda ensured that. It's not a level playing field, and the deck is continually be stacked more heavily in favor of the big business.
Nobody is immune, because the knowledge required to be so immune would literally require 40 hours a week to learn for all the products that touch our daily lives, digital or otherwise.
I think of computer gaming the same way. I care about the integrity of the game play. To me there is very little difference between the cheaters who use 3rd party programs to win and the suits who manipulate elements for profit. It's all asshattery that harms the game's integrity.
For me it has nothing to do with fantasies about being the best. It's a fucked up thing all by itself.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
All it takes is the right IP with the right bait and the right mechanics to make someone spend more than intended, fully aware that it isn't worth it or likely to work out. For me, that was Fire Emblem Heroes.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And you didn't answer my question which was what you personally think about what they do to the integrity of the competition.
A really bad player with a cheat program or P2W cash shop advantages will still be a bad player and can be beat by a good player without the advantages. But that's neither here nor there with respect to issues like integrity and honesty.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The RNG roadblock to obtaining highly desirable items is also not binary. I've seen many solutions to that over the years including earning tokens that you can use to buy exactly what you want instead of getting drops.
Of course, games that sell those things in a cash shop that can also be obtained through game play have no financial incentive for redesigning gearing up to make it more reasonable. The opposite is true. "Inconvenience by design" is very much a thing in those games.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I think that we definitely align on your last point. I do agree that game designs have come to a point where there is plenty of inconvenience involved with the progression. It's one of the reasons I don't play much multiplayer anymore. There is a very real, non-trivial time commitment required for nearly every game. Gone are the days when I could play the COD Campaign and reach the top tier of multiplayer in a week. Now you require hundreds of hours and progression is seemingly endless. That being said, I can't help but wonder if this is a result of core gamers complaining endlessly for so long. Also, in order for that to happen, organizations introduce the cash shop as a means of speeding progression for those who aren't the core gamers. I think that's super nice of them, I mean they might make a little extra cash, but they are probably doing it for the people
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
I stopped playing against my son years ago because it became an exercise in futility and frustration. This is why I never let them win, I knew this day would come
That being said, it's funny because when we did used to play I would always yell at him when he first started REALLY kicking my ass.
"Stop using the shotgun you fuck'n cheesy bastard!"..... "Stop using the sniper, that's so cheesy!!!"
So maybe it's a phased thing.
Phase 1 - In the dreamer phase, you think that you're good enough to compete with the best. I mean they have the same body parts as you, so if you work hard, you can do anything! This is a distinctly American idea. Nobody in Canada ever tells their kid that they can grow up to be Prime Minister if they work hard. Also, our Olympians strive for personal bests instead of medals.
Phase 2 - In the disillusionment phase, you think that there must be something impacting your ability to be as good as others. Blame something! Quick!
Phase 3 - In the acceptance phase, you have accepted that people are better than you. Maybe you spent $10,000 to get the best of everything and still rank 100,000 in the world, or maybe you had a much less costly revelation. At this point it's likely that you'll either accept it and have fun continuing to play, or you'll reject it and move onto another game that isn't so P2W, where you skills will most likely bring you to the top of the world rankings
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
In some regards there are. There are plenty of pills, post-workout recovery drinks, etc. which provide an advantage to some degree because your body would be less worn over the course of a long season.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
The rest of your post seems to indicate that, because the items don't 100% guarantee the win for the player, it's okay. But that's not really applicable because it's reductio ad absurdum. Nothing short of literally being handed the win directly guarantees success, even if you receive an unfair advantage.
Having 12 players on the field playing football is an unfair advantage, but it doesn't guarantee a win, so why care, right? No, nobody would agree with that. Same for family board game night, for another example: starting halfway across the board doesn't technically mean you're guaranteed to win, so no big deal? I highly doubt many would agree.
This idea that video games are such a unique bird as to warrant enjoying a mentality that absolutely isn't supported in any other realm is false. We can apply general principles of integrity, fair practice, and transparency to this industry, too. Nothing about it makes it so special as to exempt it.
Let's party like it is 1863!
You looking forward to a raise this year? Gonna have 25 hours every day, instead of just 24?
You act as if I somehow asked for power progression in my competitive games. I didn't. In fact, I've mentioned elsewhere (a while ago now) that, unless the unlocks are sidegrades, it's a bad idea to award players with direct power upgrades in competitive games.
MMORPGs are not just competitive games, though. They're, first and foremost, RPGs. RPGs have, by and large, always had vertical power progression. So, if you want to play something competitive that doesn't place you behind someone who spent more time working on their characters, I would suggest not playing an RPG or sticking to instanced arena/battlegrounds. There's really nothing wrong with that. Trying to change the core of RPG content mechanics? That seems like an exercise in futility at best, an attempt to muddy the waters simply because there's not a good counter-argument at worst.
Nor are real skill based PvP and progression-based power curves mutually exclusive, as implied in your post. See battlegrounds/arenas.
Then you go on to stereotype folks who enjoy RPG progression. Why? That's beneath you. Who ever came to the forums beating their chests that they just completed the raid 75 levels lower than their party? I don't remember ever seeing anyone brag about beating down grey-con mobs. It also seems unrelated to the core issue at debate here.
Finally, you cut your own nose off to spite your face. "I don't like those PvP players anyways, so go on and include those deceptive matchmaking/monetization/marketing practices, I'll go down with this ship as long as they go down tooooooooo!"