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
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If it impacts the gameplay and gives the player an advantage at all, it exists on the colloquial pay to win spectrum.
Colloquial doesn't mean thing you just made up. Again any advantage would come up so rarely that it would be pointless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
No. No I bloody well didn't. I know the argument I'm making. I know what I've written. It's there for people to review. Deal with what I've written not what you'd prefer me to have written. You've repeatedly claimed having more of something was an advantage. That isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
God, that was a mouthful.
And completely wrong.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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."
You need to read the rest of what I've written. Taking one line out of context and claiming that was my argument still falls under the category of strawman.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This was to counter that players have an advantage when there are more reqs available to them.
You think you can tell me what I meant when I wrote a sentence? Seriously?

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
You'd have to be right first. I'm not going to stop pointing out the areas where you're wrong, because you want me to. I'm not going to stop thinking, because you'd find it easier. Aside from using reasoned arguments and supporting evidence how are we going to get to the truth?
I feel that certain reqs are hard to come by but I tend to see a lot of people using them constantly.

Wasps and tanks tend to be the thing I barely ever have. Since they came out I feel like I've barely pulled any wasps and even had the opportunity to even have enough of them to learn how to pilot them better. Typically when ever I get a wasp I'm always relearning position and what buttons to use. Tanks are hard to come by because I use them but I barely use wasps and I've barely had them to use up.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
It's really depressing to see company's like 343i thinking micro-transactions are ok...when a majority of gamers hate the P2W model while there are some that try to rationalise it.
Halo's must have been fairly profitable, so I doubt they will be disappearing. Judging from the lack of super negative REQ press, we will probably see a more invasive system in Halo 6.
Yeah we 100% will see that. Microsoft is no exception to the large publishers that see microtransactions as a pillar of game development. Heck, Halo Wars 2 invented an entirely new mode specifically to stand on a microtransaction-based system.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Warzone Turbo is kind of P2W, but i haven't bought any packs and have plenty of REQs to burn through during Turbo (i'm level 149). Warzone turbo is meant to be crazy, wild and burning through REQs. But being a lower level makes it tough during Turbo. If you look at regular warzone, you still have to build your REQ level regardless of how many you have.
I have never bought any pack with real money because I'm against it but I have seen enough people spamming abilities like the sprint boosts to give an unfair advantage...to a point where the game breaks, unable to get a kill. Of course Turbo is supposed to be crazy...but the same applies to any other modes related to Warzone. I remember when Halo 5 first started and anyone with a lot of money could have easily taken control of the game by spamming banshee's, etc... against people who barely had pistols/dmr's, even now anyone just starting the game while have a serious disadvantage over paying customers or anyone luck us with high ranks with a healthful about REQ items saved up.
I don't think it can really be considered unfair if the same Req's are available to all players, but you make the choice not to use them while others do. Sure, if you have few to no Req's, then yeah obviously it's going to feel pretty unfair when someone's isn't burning through all of theirs. But it's not nearly the same thing as those Req's being completely unavailable to you because you refused to pay money for them. Req points are earned quite easily through standard gameplay. On another note, I have to say, given how much time I've spent playing through warzone games, the best Req's aren't actually those Legendaries you feel too terrified to use for fear of losing them; the best Req's are the cheap, mid-level ones: the grenade launchers and lasers, the ghost variants and the wasps. Being in a high-req vehicle may give you a lot of firepower, but my god, it also gives you a giant bullseye on your back!

keep in mind, too, that those folks who do blow wads and wads of money on Req packs are helping fund future developments of the series in the long run. Req points don't pay salaries, good old money does. The more a game can bring in, the better off the game series is, and that includes being better for the folks that didn't spend any money on Req packs. Don't hate on them too hard; their spending benefits those of us who don't spend at all!
It's pay to skip the grind.... Not pay to win. To me players that think it's pay to win just can't think tactically very well. Skill will beat any amount of reqs.
MT's suck hard. H5 system is better than most, worst than some.

I personaly have never felt at a disadvantage while playing vanilla Warzone. That doesn't mean i like the system, id much rather it be purely cosmetic or not there at all but i've experienced a lot worse.

As a community we're gonna have to keep a close eye on MS and kick up a fuss if they start some -Yoink-. Don't let microsoft think they can pull a EA but don't expect Halo 6 to be MT free either, they just make too much money.

Pandoras loot box has been opened. We gotta make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
MT's suck hard. H5 system is better than most, worst than some.

I personaly have never felt at a disadvantage while playing vanilla Warzone. That doesn't mean i like the system, id much rather it be purely cosmetic or not there at all but i've experienced a lot worse.

As a community we're gonna have to keep a close eye on MS and kick up a fuss if they start some -Yoink-. Don't let microsoft think they can pull a EA but don't expect Halo 6 to be MT free either, they just make too much money.

Pandoras loot box has been opened. We gotta make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
I'm curious to know what makes H5's system worse than something else. They don't force microtransactions down your throat, they don't make it so you can only get a particular weapon by paying cash for it, they don't make progression so agonizingly slow that paying for req packs is the only way to feel like you're advancing, packs are randomized so paying cash does not increase your chances of getting something valuable any more than using req points, and they don't directly affect game play in any way at all.

To me, they've found the right balance between being an option should someone choose to pay cash, but at the same time not being completely intrusive. If things stay this way, there won't be any problems. Well, unless you're worried about perceived advantages on Day 1 game play, that is.
MT's suck hard. H5 system is better than most, worst than some.

I personaly have never felt at a disadvantage while playing vanilla Warzone. That doesn't mean i like the system, id much rather it be purely cosmetic or not there at all but i've experienced a lot worse.

As a community we're gonna have to keep a close eye on MS and kick up a fuss if they start some -Yoink-. Don't let microsoft think they can pull a EA but don't expect Halo 6 to be MT free either, they just make too much money.

Pandoras loot box has been opened. We gotta make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
I'm curious to know what makes H5's system worse than something else. They don't force microtransactions down your throat, they don't make it so you can only get a particular weapon by paying cash for it, they don't make progression so agonizingly slow that paying for req packs is the only way to feel like you're advancing, packs are randomized so paying cash does not increase your chances of getting something valuable any more than using req points, and they don't directly affect game play in any way at all.

To me, they've found the right balance between being an option should someone choose to pay cash, but at the same time not being completely intrusive. If things stay this way, there won't be any problems. Well, unless you're worried about perceived advantages on Day 1 game play, that is.
H5 system is worse than a purely cosmetic system. There's a possibility, however small, that someone who pays can have an advantage over someone who does not. If i drop a £100 on Gold packs chances are im going to get some powerful weapons to use against players that haven't payed. This is of course limited by the REQ level system as well as certifications. This makes it miles better than COD or Battlefront systems.

However if the system was purely cosmetic no matter how much cash i spent it have zero effect on gameplay. So H5s system is IMO worse than something like Overwatch.

To make it clear I wouldn't be angry if H6 had exactly the same system as H5. As i mentioned it's one of the better systems, i'd just prefer it if it was only cosmetic.
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
keep in mind, too, that those folks who do blow wads and wads of money on Req packs are helping fund future developments of the series in the long run. Req points don't pay salaries, good old money does. The more a game can bring in, the better off the game series is, and that includes being better for the folks that didn't spend any money on Req packs. Don't hate on them too hard; their spending benefits those of us who don't spend at all!
There's no proof of that, most of the 'profit' ends up getting wasted on pointless tournaments as prizes. Just because a game makes sales off REQ's does not mean that it's going straight to the next main game, it certainly doesn't mean the quality of someone's work will drastically change either based on how money was wasted on REQ's. Money only goes so far since the designers are relying heavily on deadlines and the skills of the individual game designers that are working on the projects...and the way they handled H5 was appalling since they ended getting the fans to make content for them instead of 343i so yes I'm going to hate on Micro-transactions with everything I have because Micro-transactions are to blame for the stupid Achiles grinding and the endless farming/lottery system that we have to put up with today.

Loot box/packs have done nothing to improve the games and have done nothing to increase content more than previous titles, yet we're supposed to just accept it because 343i forced it onto us, regardless of if someone 'paid' money for it...it's still a P2W model that encourages people to buy packs to try get higher tier vehicles to gain an advantage...so it's irrelevant if someone saved up endless amount of points because that feature exist's in countless mobile games. The stamina is no different to most standard P2W mobile games...and yet this conviently get's used to ignore that fact to make it seem like a P2W model. The only difference after having REQ's saved up is the people who have saved up REQ's with 'in-game' currency is that it's just another form of currency so technically it would still be kind of like a P2W...even if the person's couldn't use 'real money'.
No pay= no problem 👍👍
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
ronnie42 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
keep in mind, too, that those folks who do blow wads and wads of money on Req packs are helping fund future developments of the series in the long run. Req points don't pay salaries, good old money does. The more a game can bring in, the better off the game series is, and that includes being better for the folks that didn't spend any money on Req packs. Don't hate on them too hard; their spending benefits those of us who don't spend at all!
There's no proof of that, most of the 'profit' ends up getting wasted on pointless tournaments as prizes. Just because a game makes sales off REQ's does not mean that it's going straight to the next main game, it certainly doesn't mean the quality of someone's work will drastically change either based on how money was wasted on REQ's. Money only goes so far since the designers are relying heavily on deadlines and the skills of the individual game designers that are working on the projects...and the way they handled H5 was appalling since they ended getting the fans to make content for them instead of 343i so yes I'm going to hate on Micro-transactions with everything I have because Micro-transactions are to blame for the stupid Achiles grinding and the endless farming/lottery system that we have to put up with today.

Loot box/packs have done nothing to improve the games and have done nothing to increase content more than previous titles, yet we're supposed to just accept it because 343i forced it onto us, regardless of if someone 'paid' money for it...it's still a P2W model that encourages people to buy packs to try get higher tier vehicles to gain an advantage...so it's irrelevant if someone saved up endless amount of points because that feature exist's in countless mobile games. The stamina is no different to most standard P2W mobile games...and yet this conviently get's used to ignore that fact to make it seem like a P2W model. The only difference after having REQ's saved up is the people who have saved up REQ's with 'in-game' currency is that it's just another form of currency so technically it would still be kind of like a P2W...even if the person's couldn't use 'real money'.
Do you have proof that it gets wasted on these "pointless" tournaments? It seems to me that having these tournaments would increase the allure of the game, and get it some extra press as well, coming back in what essentially turns into multiple layers of advertising. Regardless, saying that significant amounts of money make no difference in quality is completely off base. Know what you can do with more money? Hire more devs, so that those deadlines get easier to meet since the workload is more spread out, enabling a finer eye to be kept on details. It also would enable you to invest in more technological capital, making it easier to meet deadlines by procuring equipment that makes the developmental processes simpler and faster. Sure, the simple fact that you have money doesn't suddenly make your product's quality any better, but that's obvious. It's what you do with that money in order to amplify and streamline your processes that make the quality climb.

Do you think they should do away with Warzone entirely? Your argument against any form of Req points whatsoever in order to avoid your imagined version of what P2W means eradicates any reasonable chance of warzone existing. All those weapons, all those vehicles, how could you allocate them without Req points? What, unlock everything for everyone all the time? Pretty detrimental to gameplay, that. The Req system, that you claim added nothing to the series, makes warzone a possibility. It creates a system of Risk vs. Reward, requires strategy to implement what Reqs you have in your possession at the best possible time in order to maximize their usefulness on the battlefield. Having a few more of one Req than another constantly sways that evaluation back and forth, all over the place. It's brought a completely new dimension to the series, which id hardly consider "nothing".
Disagree, I think Halo 5 has one of the most balanced and fair micro transaction system in any game.
It's kind of funny to see people looking for every single thing to say that Halo 5 s*cks.
I am a Warzone player and I never have had to bought any req pack. If you are a player with no skill and you need only power weapons, vehicles and power ups to win a match, then you shouldn't be playing Halo, Warzone is not just about vehicles and power weapons.
If you don't like Halo anymore, just don't play it and stop trying to put hate into other players.
Pay 2 win is when you essentially need micro-transactions to keep up at the highest level (eg. experience boosts in games that require grinding) but in Halo 5 they're essentially a joke even with moderate amounts of play, and only somewhat helpful to newer players who can't keep up.
That's the exact opposite of what pay 2 win means in every way, people just conflate P2W with any type of micro-transaction that affects gameplay period.
ronnie42 wrote:
Do you have proof that it gets wasted on these "pointless" tournaments? It seems to me that having these tournaments would increase the allure of the game, and get it some extra press as well, coming back in what essentially turns into multiple layers of advertising. Regardless, saying that significant amounts of money make no difference in quality is completely off base. Know what you can do with more money? Hire more devs, so that those deadlines get easier to meet since the workload is more spread out, enabling a finer eye to be kept on details. It also would enable you to invest in more technological capital, making it easier to meet deadlines by procuring equipment that makes the developmental processes simpler and faster. Sure, the simple fact that you have money doesn't suddenly make your product's quality any better, but that's obvious. It's what you do with that money in order to amplify and streamline your processes that make the quality climb.

Do you think they should do away with Warzone entirely? Your argument against any form of Req points whatsoever in order to avoid your imagined version of what P2W means eradicates any reasonable chance of warzone existing. All those weapons, all those vehicles, how could you allocate them without Req points? What, unlock everything for everyone all the time? Pretty detrimental to gameplay, that. The Req system, that you claim added nothing to the series, makes warzone a possibility. It creates a system of Risk vs. Reward, requires strategy to implement what Reqs you have in your possession at the best possible time in order to maximize their usefulness on the battlefield. Having a few more of one Req than another constantly sways that evaluation back and forth, all over the place. It's brought a completely new dimension to the series, which id hardly consider "nothing".
It's common knowledge that Halo 5's req's support these pointless tournaments but here's a random link, I'm sure you can find several news related items on this if you choose to look further. Sure it's getting extra press for the gamers that only care about their K/D meanwhile the rest of the majority of gamers that don't...tend to not care at all, it's a lot of money being put into the tournaments. Of course you can hire more dev's...but that means nothing if the teams don't communicate correctly, which is why 4,5 happened and it depends on the people hired. Just hiring some more people doesn't guarantee a game will be a success....H5 was proof of this since it only encouraged more wasted time on reskins instead of making major content updates and relying way too heavily on the community to make content for them. Quality and quantity are just as important as each other but you can't expect games to look better just because they have more staff...hiring 1 staff alone means making more costs for software/hardware/license, company's have lay off's all the time.

Of course Warzone should stay in it's own way but the REQ system needs to go and become more balanced like BTB instead of catering to the P2W system that they have today, the awful grinding that they expect us to do to unlock anything so gone are the days of unlocking things by playing for fun challenges. Warzone is just a name at the end of the day...there's no reason whatsoever why they couldn't replace it with something similar like a proper Firefight mode...like Bungie did with Odst but instead include matchmaking.

The REQ system always takes risks to use but in it's current state it's poorly implemented like the poor spawns that can like to REQ's instant killed with no option to change spawns, etc...
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If it impacts the gameplay and gives the player an advantage at all, it exists on the colloquial pay to win spectrum.
Colloquial doesn't mean thing you just made up. Again any advantage would come up so rarely that it would be pointless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
No. No I bloody well didn't. I know the argument I'm making. I know what I've written. It's there for people to review. Deal with what I've written not what you'd prefer me to have written. You've repeatedly claimed having more of something was an advantage. That isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
God, that was a mouthful.
And completely wrong.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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."
You need to read the rest of what I've written. Taking one line out of context and claiming that was my argument still falls under the category of strawman.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This was to counter that players have an advantage when there are more reqs available to them.
You think you can tell me what I meant when I wrote a sentence? Seriously?

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
You'd have to be right first. I'm not going to stop pointing out the areas where you're wrong, because you want me to. I'm not going to stop thinking, because you'd find it easier. Aside from using reasoned arguments and supporting evidence how are we going to get to the truth?
Go ahead and google pay to win instead of wasting my time.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If it impacts the gameplay and gives the player an advantage at all, it exists on the colloquial pay to win spectrum.
Colloquial doesn't mean thing you just made up. Again any advantage would come up so rarely that it would be pointless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
No. No I bloody well didn't. I know the argument I'm making. I know what I've written. It's there for people to review. Deal with what I've written not what you'd prefer me to have written. You've repeatedly claimed having more of something was an advantage. That isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
God, that was a mouthful.
And completely wrong.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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."
You need to read the rest of what I've written. Taking one line out of context and claiming that was my argument still falls under the category of strawman.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This was to counter that players have an advantage when there are more reqs available to them.
You think you can tell me what I meant when I wrote a sentence? Seriously?

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
You'd have to be right first. I'm not going to stop pointing out the areas where you're wrong, because you want me to. I'm not going to stop thinking, because you'd find it easier. Aside from using reasoned arguments and supporting evidence how are we going to get to the truth?
Go ahead and google pay to win instead of wasting my time.
We are actually both technically right. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
If it impacts the gameplay and gives the player an advantage at all, it exists on the colloquial pay to win spectrum.
Colloquial doesn't mean thing you just made up. Again any advantage would come up so rarely that it would be pointless.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
No. No I bloody well didn't. I know the argument I'm making. I know what I've written. It's there for people to review. Deal with what I've written not what you'd prefer me to have written. You've repeatedly claimed having more of something was an advantage. That isn't the case.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
God, that was a mouthful.
And completely wrong.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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."
You need to read the rest of what I've written. Taking one line out of context and claiming that was my argument still falls under the category of strawman.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This was to counter that players have an advantage when there are more reqs available to them.
You think you can tell me what I meant when I wrote a sentence? Seriously?

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
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.
You'd have to be right first. I'm not going to stop pointing out the areas where you're wrong, because you want me to. I'm not going to stop thinking, because you'd find it easier. Aside from using reasoned arguments and supporting evidence how are we going to get to the truth?
This may be spam posting, but I am going to link a paragraph so I am not taking the things you said "out of context" and italicize the point I was referring to.
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. Here, you say that you can counter people with reqs, so paying for reqs doesn't provide an advantage. Does that sound like what I said before? It probably does, because it is.

The actual quote where I Have apparently done this was a two sentence response to one of my points, so get out of here with your straw man claims. I can feel the slime through my screen.
F4LL3N 999 wrote:
Go ahead and google pay to win instead of wasting my time.
I don't need to google something to know your argument is a failure. You repeatedly claiming I'm making a different argument than I am is obviously a waste of my time.

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
We are actually both technically right. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pay-to-win
You're trying to use urban dictionary as a source?

F4LL3N 999 wrote:
This may be spam posting, but I am going to link a paragraph so I am not taking the things you said "out of context" and italicize the point I was referring to.
In the future edit your posts if you want to add information. There isn't any need to post multiple times in a row. Spamming the forums isn't allowed.

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. 77

The actual quote where I Have apparently done this was a two sentence response to one of my points, so get out of here with your straw man claims
Yes, you've taken a section out of context and are trying to claim that is the crux of my argument. Congratulations. That doesn't change the fact that my argument as I've repeatedly stated is that the 'advantage' of having bought a normal amount of req packs would so rarely sway a match it is negligible and that almost every other factor that can sway a warzone match is going to have more of an effect than having bought a few req packs.

Quote:
Here, you say that you can counter people with reqs, so paying for reqs doesn't provide an advantage. Does that sound like what I said before? It probably does, because it is.
Yes. You can play the game and counter one req with another because having more of something isn't an advantage in and of itself. This is one item that supports the second part of my argument that microtransactions would sway a warzone match far less than almost any other aspect of the game. You don't seem to be grasping that and your repeated attempt to deflect away from the argument itself are becoming tedious.

Quote:
I can feel the slime through my screen.
Yeah, stooping to insults because you can't support your argument. Nice. Round of applause.
It isn't 100% PTW, but when I have 50 Nornfangs at my disposal and a new guy has nothing a BR, he is going to be trying a lot harder than me to get kills for sure. The biggest mistake any Halo 5 player can make is caring about winning in Warzone. It's the most unbalanced mess in the game and you are at the mercy of 23 other players. You could buy $10 million in reqs and still lose every match, so it's more "pay to get kills and maybe win". Sadly microtransactions aren't going away. It will probably get much, much worse because people just can't stop buying them.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4