Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

[Locked] Warzone REQ Packs Are Pay to Win.

OP F4LL3N 999

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
One could the same about your response. If you're going to respond put in some effort. Tell him/her what the errors in it's argument and perhaps offer a few counterpoints. Stating "That is a terrible argument' offers nothing of value.

Quote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons.
I have all the legendary weapons (all the weapons and armor really) and the only packs I've paid money for I've given away to the community. There isn't any kind of requirement that you pay money for packs. I'm not fond of microtransactions as a concept, but I will say they were implemented well in Halo 5 minimizing their effect on game play.
Quote:
While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage,
I don't know that I agree with that. Simply put the only time that having paid money for reqs is really going to alter the situation is in an otherwise perfectly balanced match. The two teams would have to have equal skill, equal amount of time played, equal coordination etc. Then having those extra reqs might shift things and even then it's far from insurmountable. I'm an average player

Quote:
requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level.
Which is one of the barriers against abuse of the req system. You have to play well to get to use the better toys.
Quote:
This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win.
Because buying reqs doesn't guarantee a win (and doesn't truly make you more likely to win.) Everyone starts off on the same footing in a warzone match. The first five minutes where people fight for control of the bases and set up for the rest of the match is going to determine a lot more than who has more reqs in their collections.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
One could the same about your response. If you're going to respond put in some effort. Tell him/her what the errors in it's argument. Stating "That is a terrible argument' offers nothing of value.

Quote:
After seeing the battlefront 2 controversy, I can't help but be disgusted how many games are slowly being overtaken by microtransactions. I have played Halo 5 for the two years it has been out, but always viewed the REQ packs as a solid microtransaction system that didn't have too much of an effect on the gameplay. Recently, I have been comparing the relationships between REQs and warzone, and realized that there are not many differences between the Battlefront 2 loot boxes and Halo's. A player who sinks money into gold packs can pack their arsenal with legendary weapons.
I have all the legendary weapons (all the weapons and armor really) and the only packs I've paid money for I've given away to the community. There isn't any kind of requirement that you pay money for packs. I'm not fond of microtransactions as a concept, but I will say they were implemented well in Halo 5 minimizing their effect on game play.
Quote:
While all of these weapons and vehicles are usually expendable, they give the player who sinks money in a distinct advantage,
I don't know that I agree with that. Simply put the only time that having paid money for reqs is really going to alter the situation is in an otherwise perfectly balanced match. The two teams would have to have equal skill, equal amount of time played, equal coordination etc. Then having those extra reqs might shift things and even then it's far from insurmountable. I'm an average player

Quote:
requiring that they achieve the in game REQ level.
Which is one of the barriers against abuse of the req system. You have to play well to get to use the better toys.
Quote:
This is more benign than the current Battlefront system, but I don't see how it isn't 100% pay to win.
Because buying reqs doesn't guarantee a win (and doesn't truly make you more likely to win.) Everyone starts off on the same footing in a warzone match. The first five minutes where people fight for control of the bases and set up for the rest of the match is going to determine a lot more than who has more reqs in their collections.
It doesn't have to guarantee a when or even make you more likely to win overall. I am envisioning a match where someone has 10 phaetons after spending a ton of money on req packs at level 10 against lower level players that don't even have anything. There are many barriers reducing the impact of the purchased req packs, but there is still that overall advantage if someone has access to more and better weapons than you. This would be an easier scenario to explain when the game first came out, but it does give that player an advantage, regardless how small that winds up being.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It doesn't have to guarantee a when or even make you more likely to win overall.
Again, it's only going to provide an advantage if the teams are otherwise evenly matched. The more skilled team is always going to win with the current set up.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I am envisioning a match where someone has 10 phaetons after spending a ton of money on req packs at level 10 against lower level players that don't even have anything.
And with the respawn rate and slow gain of reqs I don't think calling in 10 phaetons is possible, but even if it was there are dozens of counters that are available and far more common than the phaeton; railguns, splasers, tanks, a well flown banshee, even repeated BR/DMR fire is going to bring down phaetons. Having better reqs doesn't make you a better player and doesn't mean you're going to win or even be more likely to. Trust me I lose quite a bit, despite having everything.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
There are many barriers reducing the impact of the purchased req packs, but there is still that overall advantage if someone has access to more and better weapons than you.
And that really isn't true except in a hypothetical perfect match. I've taken out people who were using Nornfangs/H2Beam rifle Deltas with their baseline counterparts on numerous occasions and I'm an average player at best. I've taken out Snipers with my DMR more times than I could count. Having paid for reqs doesn't offer an advantage in and of itself. You still have to have the skill to get high enough to use it and be at least equally skilled to the other person.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This would be an easier scenario to explain when the game first came out, but it does give that player an advantage, regardless how small that winds up being.
And when that is negligable? On day one someone would have to have spent hundreds (if not thousands) to unlock everything and then there isn't any reason to assume they would've been able to use it effectively. I've played warzone since H5 launched and I never lost a match because the other team had better reqs. I lost matches because they were a fall party and coordinated. I've lost matches because of a bad luck, poor teammates, because I was having one of those days where I couldn't pull off anything, but never because I was 'out req'd'
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It doesn't have to guarantee a when or even make you more likely to win overall.
Again, it's only going to provide an advantage if the teams are otherwise evenly matched. The more skilled team is always going to win with the current set up.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I am envisioning a match where someone has 10 phaetons after spending a ton of money on req packs at level 10 against lower level players that don't even have anything.
And with the respawn rate and slow gain of reqs I don't think calling in 10 phaetons is possible, but even if it was there are dozens of counters that are available and far more common than the phaeton; railguns, splasers, tanks, a well flown banshee, even repeated BR/DMR fire is going to bring down phaetons. Having better reqs doesn't make you a better player and doesn't make you a better player.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
There are many barriers reducing the impact of the purchased req packs, but there is still that overall advantage if someone has access to more and better weapons than you.
And that really isn't true except in a hypothetical perfect match. I've taken out people who were using Nornfangs/H2Beam rifle Deltas with their baseline counterparts on numerous occasions and I'm an average player at best. I've taken out Snipers with my DMR more times than I could count. Having paid for reqs doesn't offer an advantage in and of itself. You still have to have the skill to get high enough to use it and be at least equally skilled to the other person.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This would be an easier scenario to explain when the game first came out, but it does give that player an advantage, regardless how small that winds up being.
And when that is negligable? On day one someone would have to have spent hundreds (if not thousands) to unlock everything and then there isn't any reason to assume they would've been able to use it effectively. I've played warzone since H5 launched and I never lost a match because the other team had better reqs. I lost matches because they were a fall party and coordinated. I've lost matches because of a bad luck, poor teammates, because I was having one of those days where I couldn't pull off anything.
I don't mean to paraphrase here, but any advantage makes a game pay to win as far as any definition I have seen. The perfect match you are referring to is the perfect example of that. Unless the pay to win is so incredibly invasive, a good player can level the playing field. But if someone goes on a killing spree with a banshee and just keeps repeatedly calling them in again and again match after match, or if someone buys 100 prophets banes, it becomes a problem. They do still have to be skilled to get kills, but they get the source of their kills from buying things. I am not saying that Halo 5 is entirely about buying reqs. It isn't even noticeable at higher levels anyway, but it still gives players an advantage when the fight is even. Again, I am not an expert on game balance, but that makes a game pay to win.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I don't mean to paraphrase here, but any advantage makes a game pay to win as far as any definition I have seen.
Those are two different things. Pay to win means paying money guarantess a win, paying for advantage means you are paying to have an advantage. The point is in H5 the advantage provided by having bought req packs is ludicrously negligable. There are a lot of good arguments as to why microtransactions aren't a good thing saying they are pay to win in H5 isn't one of them. There are a lot of reasons I don't like microtransactions (which is why I've only spent money on them as gifts.)

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
The perfect match you are referring to is the perfect example of that. Unless the pay to win is so incredibly invasive, a good player can level the playing field. But if someone goes on a killing spree with a banshee and just keeps repeatedly calling them in again and again match after match, or if someone buys 100 prophets banes, it becomes a problem.
I have 60 prophet's banes. It's one of my favorite weapons. (Ironic I know) I don't win every match. I have close to 300 banshees ( I sold a bunch a while back) I don't win every match.) That isn't the way reqs are used and even if it were I can counter most banshee players (there are a few that are just to good at abusing it), but give me an arclight and 90% of them go down. I only need to get taken down by camo once to know it is there and respond. These things don't provide an advantage in and of themselves. It's how they are used. If you keep using banshees I'll keep knocking them out of the sky.

More than that; req packs are random. If you buy 500 gold packs you aren't guaranteed a banshee.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
They do still have to be skilled to get kills, but they get the source of their kills from buying things. I am not saying that Halo 5 is entirely about buying reqs. It isn't even noticeable at higher levels anyway, but it still gives players an advantage when the fight is even.
Yes and how many times has their actually been an evenly matched WZ game? How many times are those teams equally skilled? Equally coordinated? Equally lucky in the amount of people who quit or are having a bad game? Equally lucky in the AI dice roll? The advantage is only going to play a role in who wins in 1 in a million games.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Again, I am not an expert on game balance, but that makes a game pay to win.
No, it really doesn't. Aside from your misuse of the buzzword the advantage provided by having bought reqs is negligble.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It doesn't have to guarantee a when or even make you more likely to win overall.
Again, it's only going to provide an advantage if the teams are otherwise evenly matched. The more skilled team is always going to win with the current set up.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I am envisioning a match where someone has 10 phaetons after spending a ton of money on req packs at level 10 against lower level players that don't even have anything.
And with the respawn rate and slow gain of reqs I don't think calling in 10 phaetons is possible, but even if it was there are dozens of counters that are available and far more common than the phaeton; railguns, splasers, tanks, a well flown banshee, even repeated BR/DMR fire is going to bring down phaetons. Having better reqs doesn't make you a better player and doesn't make you a better player.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
There are many barriers reducing the impact of the purchased req packs, but there is still that overall advantage if someone has access to more and better weapons than you.
And that really isn't true except in a hypothetical perfect match. I've taken out people who were using Nornfangs/H2Beam rifle Deltas with their baseline counterparts on numerous occasions and I'm an average player at best. I've taken out Snipers with my DMR more times than I could count. Having paid for reqs doesn't offer an advantage in and of itself. You still have to have the skill to get high enough to use it and be at least equally skilled to the other person.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This would be an easier scenario to explain when the game first came out, but it does give that player an advantage, regardless how small that winds up being.
And when that is negligable? On day one someone would have to have spent hundreds (if not thousands) to unlock everything and then there isn't any reason to assume they would've been able to use it effectively. I've played warzone since H5 launched and I never lost a match because the other team had better reqs. I lost matches because they were a fall party and coordinated. I've lost matches because of a bad luck, poor teammates, because I was having one of those days where I couldn't pull off anything.
I don't mean to paraphrase here, but any advantage makes a game pay to win as far as any definition I have seen. The perfect match you are referring to is the perfect example of that. Unless the pay to win is so incredibly invasive, a good player can level the playing field. But if someone goes on a killing spree with a banshee and just keeps repeatedly calling them in again and again match after match, or if someone buys 100 prophets banes, it becomes a problem. They do still have to be skilled to get kills, but they get the source of their kills from buying things. I am not saying that Halo 5 is entirely about buying reqs. It isn't even noticeable at higher levels anyway, but it still gives players an advantage when the fight is even. Again, I am not an expert on game balance, but that makes a game pay to win.
It doesnt make the game pay to win. It makes 2 playlists pay to skip.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
Doesn't look like it to me. In any case, everything boils down to "But money!" It's clear to me that your issue is with 343 for giving people the option to pay for packs, and those people who pay for packs. Whether those packs lead to wins or not, or advantages is irrelevant to you. If you could only use Req points to buy packs, maybe you'd be complaining about people having played longer having an advantage.
Just play the game a lot and you'll have plenty of reqs. I have literally hundreds of some reqs and I have never paid for them.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I don't mean to paraphrase here, but any advantage makes a game pay to win as far as any definition I have seen.
Those are two different things. Pay to win means paying money guarantess a win, paying for advantage means you are paying to have an advantage. The point is in H5 the advantage provided by having bought req packs is ludicrously negligable. There are a lot of good arguments as to why microtransactions aren't a good thing saying they are pay to win in H5 isn't one of them. There are a lot of reasons I don't like microtransactions (which is why I've only spent money on them as gifts.)

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
The perfect match you are referring to is the perfect example of that. Unless the pay to win is so incredibly invasive, a good player can level the playing field. But if someone goes on a killing spree with a banshee and just keeps repeatedly calling them in again and again match after match, or if someone buys 100 prophets banes, it becomes a problem.
I have 60 prophet's banes. It's one of my favorite weapons. (Ironic I know) I don't win every match. I have close to 300 banshees ( I sold a bunch a while back) I don't win every match.) That isn't the way reqs are used and even if it were I can counter most banshee players (there are a few that are just to good at abusing it), but give me an arclight and 90% of them go down. I only need to get taken down by camo once to know it is there and respond. These things don't provide an advantage in and of themselves. It's how they are used. If you keep using banshees I'll keep knocking them out of the sky.

More than that; req packs are random. If you buy 500 gold packs you aren't guaranteed a banshee.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
They do still have to be skilled to get kills, but they get the source of their kills from buying things. I am not saying that Halo 5 is entirely about buying reqs. It isn't even noticeable at higher levels anyway, but it still gives players an advantage when the fight is even.
Yes and how many times has their actually been an evenly matched WZ game? How many times are those teams equally skilled? Equally coordinated? Equally lucky in the amount of people who quit or are having a bad game? Equally lucky in the AI dice roll? The advantage is only going to play a role in who wins in 1 in a million games.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Again, I am not an expert on game balance, but that makes a game pay to win.
No, it really doesn't. Aside from your misuse of the buzzword the advantage provided by having bought reqs is negligble.
So according to your logic, a player who sinks a thousand dollars into req packs at level one has no advantage at all over a level 1 player who has not done this. You counter argument boils down to "other players are good, so it's fine." For starters, warzone matchmaking is not as strict as Arena, so you are not guaranteed to go against players who can counter everything you do. What happens when someone pulls out an answer, gets three kills, then pulls out another one, and another one. If they have 60 or 300, they can do this for the entire month if they want to, racking up kills because they have more of a weapon than other people. Does it take skill? Sure, but its harder to kill someone who has an answer than it is to kill even someone who has the saw. There is also that good old expanded feature for matchmaking that makes mismatches all the more possible. You can't rely on other people's skill as making something pay to win. I can have a golden gun that gets a 1 hit kill that I bought. I may be horrible with it, and lose to you, using your 5 hit kill gun. I died, but still had an advantage. I can see you saying it is a slight advantage in certain circumstances but saying there is none is just absurd.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
Doesn't look like it to me. In any case, everything boils down to "But money!" It's clear to me that your issue is with 343 for giving people the option to pay for packs, and those people who pay for packs. Whether those packs lead to wins or not, or advantages is irrelevant to you. If you could only use Req points to buy packs, maybe you'd be complaining about people having played longer having an advantage.
Because I fundamentally believe that advancements in video games should be earned with playtime and skill rather than just throwing money down. There is technically no right or wrong point of view, but microtransactions are slowly making gaming a matter of "who wants to spend more money to get everything after paying 60 dollars." Pay to win is just a more invasive version of this, and it isn't enjoyable when someone gets more kills because they paid money and aren't necessarily better. Or even if they are better, having an unearned advantage over players without the resources. You can argue that people can spend money however they want, and I would agree with you. However, it's important to recognize the potentially toxic results of further implementations of these systems on people who just simply want to play. What we will see in the coming months is how many of those players there truly are.
That being said, your argument of "People can do whatever they want" doesn't mean that pay to wn mecbanics are ruining gaming for a lot of people.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
So according to your logic, a player who sinks a thousand dollars into req packs at level one has no advantage at all over a level 1 player who has not done this.
How many players have spent a thousand dollars on reqs? How many people would do so on day one? Even if they did would they have the best reqs? Or would they have 200 warthogs? Your hypothetical didn't happen and even if it did the advantage applied would be minimal. Having a slightly better one time use req doesn't provide a whole lot of advantage. It certainly isn't as much advantage as a champion level player on one team and not the other.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You counter argument boils down to "other players are good, so it's fine."
That's a strawman. My argument is that spending money on the req system is rarely going to sway a match.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
For starters, warzone matchmaking is not as strict as Arena, so you are not guaranteed to go against players who can counter everything you do.
I'm an average player at best. Aside from 12 man teams (which are no longer a thing) there are going to be a few average players on the team and if the other team had more skilled players they are going to win regardless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
What happens when someone pulls out an answer, gets three kills, then pulls out another one, and another one
This is the same as your banshee example and equally silly. A: Pull out an answer. B: Die. C: wait three-four minutes for your reqs to recharge. D: pull out another. Again. I have about 60 answers. I sell my excess. Answers have quick counters snipers/rockets/camo. Having an answer doesn't guarantee you a kill, nor does it guarantee you a win. Buying gold packs doesn't even guarantee you the best reqs. Powerful reqs exist. That is true, but it isn't that much different than a powerful card in a CCG. It's nice to have in your deck, but you aren't able to use an infinite number of them and even if you outright buy it...it won't provide a guarantee that you'll win.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
. If they have 60 or 300, they can do this for the entire month if they want to, racking up kills because they have more of a weapon than other people. Does it take skill? Sure, but its harder to kill someone who has an answer than it is to kill even someone who has the saw.
And yet someone can keep getting kills with a saw (and call them in more frequently) as well. Someone pushed themselves to a higher req level to call in that answer....and having bought a pack doesn't make that easier than having played a lot of matches.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
. There is also that good old expanded feature for matchmaking that makes mismatches all the more possible.
So warzone matches aren't pefect? Isn't that one of my premises? That there is only a real advantage in perfectly even matches (that basically aren't things?)

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You can't rely on other people's skill as making something pay to win.
I assume that sentence got away from you.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I can have a golden gun that gets a 1 hit kill that I bought. I may be horrible with it, and lose to you, using your 5 hit kill gun. I died, but still had an advantage. I can see you saying it is a slight advantage in certain circumstances
And having bought that golden gun doesn't provide you with the opportunity to use it, nor are you going to win alot of matches you wouldn't otherwise win.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
but saying there is none is just absurd.
That's another strawman. Try to respond to things I've said, not what you'd prefer me to have said. I said the advantage would so rarely come into play that it is negligible and that the effect of having bought a normal amount of reqs is intentionally minor. That there are so many more factors that have bigger impacts on matches than microtransactions. There are a lot of ways to argue against them. This isn't a good one. There are games that are positively ruined by microtransactions. There is at least one ship combat game that you have to spend a couple hundred dollars just to compete. There are mobile games where you can't progress if you don't spend a dollar every few levels. There are games where you can outright by weapons/armor that leagues above the norm. Those are problems. In H5 that just isn't the case. I've never lost a match because I don't buy req packs for myself.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
So according to your logic, a player who sinks a thousand dollars into req packs at level one has no advantage at all over a level 1 player who has not done this.
How many players have spent a thousand dollars on reqs? How many people would do so on day one? Even if they did would they have the best reqs? Or would they have 200 warthogs? Your hypothetical didn't happen and even if it did the advantage applied would be minimal. Having a slightly better one time use req doesn't provide a whole lot of advantage. It certainly isn't as much advantage as a champion level player on one team and not the other.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You counter argument boils down to "other players are good, so it's fine."
That's a strawman. My argument is that spending money on the req system is rarely going to sway a match.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
For starters, warzone matchmaking is not as strict as Arena, so you are not guaranteed to go against players who can counter everything you do.
I'm an average player at best. Aside from 12 man teams (which are no longer a thing) there are going to be a few average players on the team and if the other team had more skilled players they are going to win regardless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
What happens when someone pulls out an answer, gets three kills, then pulls out another one, and another one
This is the same as your banshee example and equally silly. A: Pull out an answer. B: Die. C: wait three-four minutes for your reqs to recharge. D: pull out another. Again. I have about 60 answers. I sell my excess. Answers have quick counters snipers/rockets/camo. Having an answer doesn't guarantee you a kill, nor does it guarantee you a win. Buying gold packs doesn't even guarantee you the best reqs. Powerful reqs exist. That is true, but it isn't that much different than a powerful card in a CCG. It's nice to have in your deck, but you aren't able to use an infinite number of them and even if you outright buy it...it won't provide a guarantee that you'll win.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
. If they have 60 or 300, they can do this for the entire month if they want to, racking up kills because they have more of a weapon than other people. Does it take skill? Sure, but its harder to kill someone who has an answer than it is to kill even someone who has the saw.
And yet someone can keep getting kills with a saw (and call them in more frequently) as well. Someone pushed themselves to a higher req level to call in that answer....and having bought a pack doesn't make that easier than having played a lot of matches.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
. There is also that good old expanded feature for matchmaking that makes mismatches all the more possible.
So warzone matches aren't pefect? Isn't that one of my premises? That there is only a real advantage in perfectly even matches (that basically aren't things?)

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You can't rely on other people's skill as making something pay to win.
I assume that sentence got away from you.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I can have a golden gun that gets a 1 hit kill that I bought. I may be horrible with it, and lose to you, using your 5 hit kill gun. I died, but still had an advantage. I can see you saying it is a slight advantage in certain circumstances
And having bought that golden gun doesn't provide you with the opportunity to use it, nor are you going to win alot of matches you wouldn't otherwise win.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
but saying there is none is just absurd.
That's another strawman. Try to respond to things I've said, not what you'd prefer me to have said. I said the advantage would so rarely come into play that it is negligible and that the effect of having bought a normal amount of reqs is intentionally minor. That there are so many more factors that have bigger impacts on matches than microtransactions. There are a lot of ways to argue against them. This isn't a good one. There are games that are positively ruined by microtransactions. There is at least one ship combat game that you have to spend a couple hundred dollars just to compete. There are mobile games where you can't progress if you don't spend a dollar every few levels. There are games where you can outright by weapons/armor that leagues above the norm. Those are problems. In H5 that just isn't the case. I've never lost a match because I don't buy req packs for myself.
I have absolutely no idea how to narrow down sentences like that, so I am replying to all of them at once. None of my representations of my arguments were true strawmen at all, just potentially different parts of your argument than you valued. You did indeed say that players can still kill you if they are better. If that wasn't an effort to back your argument, then it shouldn't have been in your reply.

Once again, not a straw man at all. If you are saying that this is not pay to win, you are saying that there is no gameplay advantage. The only way for this to be obvious is to deal with extreme examples. There have been unboxings of 100-1000 dollars of req packs as well, so it does happen. If someone is puling out powerful and easy to use reqs and killing unsuspecting enemies in a chaotic game mode, it can be very easy to rack up kills. If we are just as good, but you have more answers than me, I can pull out that answer each time and eventually you will have the advantage. There are many things you can do to counter everything in this game, but that doesn't mean that having tons of items doesn't still hold give a player an easier time in warzone.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea how to narrow down sentences like that, so I am replying to all of them at once. None of my representations of my arguments were true strawmen at all, just potentially different parts of your argument than you valued.
You claimed I presented an argument that I didn't. You presented an argument you'd made up as opposed to the one I offered.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You did indeed say that players can still kill you if they are better. If that wasn't an effort to back your argument, then it shouldn't have been in your reply.
That is an example of one thing that provides more of an advantage than microtransactions do.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Once again, not a straw man at all.
Again, presenting something other than what I said as my argument is a strawman. Plain and simple.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If you are saying that this is not pay to win, you are saying that there is no gameplay advantage.
No. Have you even read what I've written? Having a minor advantage that occurs in 1 in a million games isn't 'pay to win.' You'd be hard presed to even say it's 'pay for advantage' Let go of the buzzwords.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
The only way for this to be obvious is to deal with extreme examples. There have been unboxings of 100-1000 dollars of req packs as well, so it does happen.
Now show that these kids won more games than they would have if they hadn't spent money on reqs. You can't do that.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If someone is puling out powerful and easy to use reqs and killing unsuspecting enemies in a chaotic game mode, it can be very easy to rack up kills.
Which A: doesn't necessarily help you win and B: can easily be done without having spent a penny on req packs

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If we are just as good, but you have more answers than me, I can pull out that answer each time and eventually you will have the advantage.
Again assuming that sentence got away from you. If you have an answer, I'm not going to match you. I'm going to counter you. IAm I not allowed to play more than you? You seem to think it's a numbers game (it's not) and the kids who can play 24/7 have the same advantage that the dude who maxes out his credit card buying reqs has in your eyes. Is it now mandatory that people only play the number of games you approve of? You also still seem to not realize that there is a period where your req levels have to recharge. It isn't infinite answers.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
There are many things you can do to counter everything in this game, but that doesn't mean that having tons of items doesn't still hold give a player an easier time in warzone.
And yet you can't show that buying packs actually provides an advantage. All you can say is person 'x' has more stuff they won't be able to use. I have more reqs than the vast majority of players and I've spent 0 dollars on req packs for myself.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
I have absolutely no idea how to narrow down sentences like that, so I am replying to all of them at once. None of my representations of my arguments were true strawmen at all, just potentially different parts of your argument than you valued.
You claimed I presented an argument that I didn't. You presented an argument you'd made up as opposed to the one I offered.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
You did indeed say that players can still kill you if they are better. If that wasn't an effort to back your argument, then it shouldn't have been in your reply.
That is an example of one thing that provides more of an advantage than microtransactions do.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Once again, not a straw man at all.
Again, presenting something other than what I said as my argument is a strawman. Plain and simple.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If you are saying that this is not pay to win, you are saying that there is no gameplay advantage.
No. Have you even read what I've written? Having a minor advantage that occurs in 1 in a million games isn't 'pay to win.' You'd be hard presed to even say it's 'pay for advantage' Let go of the buzzwords.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
The only way for this to be obvious is to deal with extreme examples. There have been unboxings of 100-1000 dollars of req packs as well, so it does happen.
Now show that these kids won more games than they would have if they hadn't spent money on reqs. You can't do that.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If someone is puling out powerful and easy to use reqs and killing unsuspecting enemies in a chaotic game mode, it can be very easy to rack up kills.
Which A: doesn't necessarily help you win and B: can easily be done without having spent a penny on req packs

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If we are just as good, but you have more answers than me, I can pull out that answer each time and eventually you will have the advantage.
Again assuming that sentence got away from you. If you have an answer, I'm not going to match you. I'm going to counter you. IAm I not allowed to play more than you? You seem to think it's a numbers game (it's not) and the kids who can play 24/7 have the same advantage that the dude who maxes out his credit card buying reqs has in your eyes. Is it now mandatory that people only play the number of games you approve of? You also still seem to not realize that there is a period where your req levels have to recharge. It isn't infinite answers.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
There are many things you can do to counter everything in this game, but that doesn't mean that having tons of items doesn't still hold give a player an easier time in warzone.
And yet you can't show that buying packs actually provides an advantage. All you can say is person 'x' has more stuff they won't be able to use. I have more reqs than the vast majority of players and I've spent 0 dollars on req packs for myself.
I had a concussion back in April, so it bothers me to look at the screen for too long, which is why I am not entirely understanding what you are saying. My proof is in having more stuff and utilizing that stuff provides an advantage. Different from arena where all players have an equal opportunity to get the stuff. Also, all of my supposed straw man claims are things that you actually said. Granted, they were pretty obviously paraphrased, but you said both that there is no advantage to having more reqs, and that skillful play balances out the microtransactions. They may have not been the main point, but you still said it. In fairness, I thought you said you would pull out an answer to counter an answer, but you didn't. How do you have 300 banshees without spending any money? I have probably 25. I am not saying you are wrong, just surprised.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
My proof is in having more stuff and utilizing that stuff provides an advantage.
No that is one of the things you are claiming. That isn't something I'm ready to accept. Having more stuff doesn't provide you with an advangtage. You can only utilize so many reqs in a match. Having 20 banshees doesn't give you an advantage against someone who has four or really one.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Different from arena where all players have an equal opportunity to get the stuff.
Everyone still has the same opportunity. You can either choose to spend the time to grind or spend the cash to skip a few matches of grinding. You aren't blocked off from getting things.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Also, all of my supposed straw man claims are things that you actually said.
No they aren't.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Granted, they were pretty obviously paraphrased, but you said both that there is no advantage to having more reqs, and that skillful play balances out the microtransactions.They may have not been the main point, but you still said it.
I said neither of those things. I said the advantage would so rarely impact the game that it was meaningless and that microtransaction would have less impact than virtually anything else that could sway a match. Read what I wrote. I know you'd prefer I'd written what that, but it isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
In fairness, I thought you said you would pull out an answer to counter an answer, but you didn't.
Rockets/ A sniper/ Camo/ a plasma caster and OS/ Railgun/prophet's bane/scorpion/wraith/banshee would all be easier way for me to counter an answer. You seem to be under the assumption that games come down to who has more of 'x' req. That isn't the case. Who puts themselves in better postition and who gets the right combination of bases/bosses matter a whole lot more than who has a spare tank.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
How do you have 300 banshees without spending any money? I have probably 25. I am not saying you are wrong, just surprised.
I have 122 basic banshees. 91 sword banshees. 59 temples. 36 ultras. 308 total. I sold off a bunch of them to get the sticker shock pack a few months back. Strictly from playing the games. The only req packs I've bought with money I've given to the community (voices of war) aside.
Ive got -Yoink- loads of reqs. More than i coukd ever use. Maybe 80 Hannibal Tanks for example. I didnt buy any of them. I just grinded.

You can still suck even if you buy a thousand dollars of gold packs. Then you paid and will still lose.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
Doesn't look like it to me. In any case, everything boils down to "But money!" It's clear to me that your issue is with 343 for giving people the option to pay for packs, and those people who pay for packs. Whether those packs lead to wins or not, or advantages is irrelevant to you. If you could only use Req points to buy packs, maybe you'd be complaining about people having played longer having an advantage.
Because I fundamentally believe that advancements in video games should be earned with playtime and skill rather than just throwing money down. There is technically no right or wrong point of view, but microtransactions are slowly making gaming a matter of "who wants to spend more money to get everything after paying 60 dollars." Pay to win is just a more invasive version of this, and it isn't enjoyable when someone gets more kills because they paid money and aren't necessarily better. Or even if they are better, having an unearned advantage over players without the resources. You can argue that people can spend money however they want, and I would agree with you. However, it's important to recognize the potentially toxic results of further implementations of these systems on people who just simply want to play. What we will see in the coming months is how many of those players there truly are.
That being said, your argument of "People can do whatever they want" doesn't mean that pay to wn mecbanics are ruining gaming for a lot of people.
And yet you still seem to ignore that this "Pay 2 Win" scheme that Halo 5 employs is only in one mode where you cannot advance at all, where winning or losing mean nothing more than winning or losing. You have no rank to gain. So what difference does it make if someone decides to lay down $10 for a req pack? What advancements are they making in Halo 5 by paying for a pack that affects only one mode where no advancement is involved?

You can be against pay 2 win or advance schemes. That's fine. But as it applies to Halo 5, your disdain for the system is misplaced simply because, as mentioned, the req packs people pay for affect Warzone only, a game mode where all there is to gain is a win or a loss. Halo 5 does not force you to pay for packs to obtain any special weapons that you couldn't get using req points.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
My proof is in having more stuff and utilizing that stuff provides an advantage.
No that is one of the things you are claiming. That isn't something I'm ready to accept. Having more stuff doesn't provide you with an advangtage. You can only utilize so many reqs in a match. Having 20 banshees doesn't give you an advantage against someone who has four or really one.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Different from arena where all players have an equal opportunity to get the stuff.
Everyone still has the same opportunity. You can either choose to spend the time to grind or spend the cash to skip a few matches of grinding. You aren't blocked off from getting things.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Also, all of my supposed straw man claims are things that you actually said.
No they aren't.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Granted, they were pretty obviously paraphrased, but you said both that there is no advantage to having more reqs, and that skillful play balances out the microtransactions.They may have not been the main point, but you still said it.
I said neither of those things. I said the advantage would so rarely impact the game that it was meaningless and that microtransaction would have less impact than virtually anything else that could sway a match. Read what I wrote. I know you'd prefer I'd written what that, but it isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
In fairness, I thought you said you would pull out an answer to counter an answer, but you didn't.
Rockets/ A sniper/ Camo/ a plasma caster and OS/ Railgun/prophet's bane/scorpion/wraith/banshee would all be easier way for me to counter an answer. You seem to be under the assumption that games come down to who has more of 'x' req. That isn't the case. Who puts themselves in better postition and who gets the right combination of bases/bosses matter a whole lot more than who has a spare tank.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
How do you have 300 banshees without spending any money? I have probably 25. I am not saying you are wrong, just surprised.
I have 122 basic banshees. 91 sword banshees. 59 temples. 36 ultras. 308 total. I sold off a bunch of them to get the sticker shock pack a few months back. Strictly from playing the games. The only req packs I've bought with money I've given to the community (voices of war) aside.
If it impacts the gameplay and gives the player an advantage at all, it exists on the colloquial pay to win spectrum. Assuming that this is the case, which is based on what I have searched on pay to win, then you did indeed say what I said you said. God, that was a mouthful. I will copy and paste another quote " You still have to have the skill to get high enough to use it and be at least equally skilled to the other person." This was to counter that players have an advantage when there are more reqs available to them. There was another quote as well backing up this point that I am too lazy to go back for, but I can DM you it if you forget what you said already. Trust me, I would much prefer you say "Hey, you are the first person to be right on the internet," not reply with logical arguments.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
>Claims Halo 5 is full-blown P2W
>Can get almost everything Halo 5 has to offer simply by playing the game.

So the only thing REQ packs affect is a Social playlist called Warzone. It's not ranked. Winning or losing doesn't affect anything. You still get XP and RP, win or lose. So why is it such a big deal that people might want to spend large sums of money to build up their arsenal again? This is a non-issue. Now, if it were a ranked game type, you'd have a more solid argument to make.

Best advice is to stop watching other people's pockets and let them spend their money however they want to. 343i has given them option. Stop being mad at them because people are throwing money at them.
That is such a terrible argument.
Doesn't look like it to me. In any case, everything boils down to "But money!" It's clear to me that your issue is with 343 for giving people the option to pay for packs, and those people who pay for packs. Whether those packs lead to wins or not, or advantages is irrelevant to you. If you could only use Req points to buy packs, maybe you'd be complaining about people having played longer having an advantage.
Because I fundamentally believe that advancements in video games should be earned with playtime and skill rather than just throwing money down. There is technically no right or wrong point of view, but microtransactions are slowly making gaming a matter of "who wants to spend more money to get everything after paying 60 dollars." Pay to win is just a more invasive version of this, and it isn't enjoyable when someone gets more kills because they paid money and aren't necessarily better. Or even if they are better, having an unearned advantage over players without the resources. You can argue that people can spend money however they want, and I would agree with you. However, it's important to recognize the potentially toxic results of further implementations of these systems on people who just simply want to play. What we will see in the coming months is how many of those players there truly are.
That being said, your argument of "People can do whatever they want" doesn't mean that pay to wn mecbanics are ruining gaming for a lot of people.
And yet you still seem to ignore that this "Pay 2 Win" scheme that Halo 5 employs is only in one mode where you cannot advance at all, where winning or losing mean nothing more than winning or losing. You have no rank to gain. So what difference does it make if someone decides to lay down $10 for a req pack? What advancements are they making in Halo 5 by paying for a pack that affects only one mode where no advancement is involved?

You can be against pay 2 win or advance schemes. That's fine. But as it applies to Halo 5, your disdain for the system is misplaced simply because, as mentioned, the req packs people pay for affect Warzone only, a game mode where all there is to gain is a win or a loss. Halo 5 does not force you to pay for packs to obtain any special weapons that you couldn't get using req points.
I hate the system because it both inflates the amount it times to take to grind for content and also gives reward to players who simply spend money. Warzone has no ranking system, but if someone can call down an easy to use req and snowball kills early on against lower levels, that isn't an even playing field. It effects gameplay as well as my ability to unlock things because there is a universal req system, instead of a separate cosmetic system. Could this be a possible remedy? Probably, but I still and always will despise microtransactions in games anyway (clearly).
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4