As said before, there is no pay to win in EVE, because everything can be bought by anyone if they have the amount of isk needed. How that isk was accumulated doesn't matter (to me). As long as anyone can achieve the same via gameplay and as long as anyone can lose whatever they bought.

You can't "pay to win" you can only "pay to avoid earning it ingame" which is a fundamental difference.

The title of this post made me vomit a bit in my mouth. I stopped reading.

In EvE, currently, you can throw all the money you want at PLEX, but you will not, in the end, own anything that someone else couldn't have earned.

You can argue all you want but the system does not treat everyone equally because peoples circumstances are not equal. You are using RL currency for an unfair advantage it is a form of pay to win.

But it is still a form of pay to win so you can't say EvE is not pay to win in any shape or form.

It's not just about the equipment it's also about the time frame.

The proper question would have been "but are ok with plex"

The answer is unknown.

Probably because paying for subs without rl money is super convenient.

(as for alts, theres no realistic way to stop someone from having them)

What you have is pay 2 not grind (plex)

good thing about EVE is the longer you play the less interesting the shiny stuff becomes.

In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 Fx once and you're done.

EvE is one of the most P2W mmos out there, through the use of alts. In twitch-based mmos, you can't really get the upper hand through alts, because you've got to move and spam skills. Well, you can multi-box the same setup and trigger the same action on all of them at once, but then it's really obvious for the opponent that he's facing Team Wizzy or 25 shamen. In EvE, you can have an offgrid boosting alt, and just let your falcon alt/remote repping alt orbit your ship, press F1 Fx once and you're done.

Online alts really must be flagged ingame as belonging to the same player/IP. For now, they can be used to escape consequences and be cheesy as hell.

What would you prefer to face, assuming you control only one character:

- Some dude with an offgrid boosting alt, a remote repping alt, a falcon alt?
- Some altless dude who spent PLEX on officer/faction gear?

There's one scenario where you can get the upper hand -or get away-, through superior piloting skills, can you guess which it is?

GǪand none of those provide any kind of GǣwinGǥ that you get just because you paid for it.

I think "win" is the operative word here. Just having the ships, modules and even skill points doesn't mean jack unless you have a sound grip on the gameplay / game mechanics.

The real win is figuring out how to relieve the poor bastard of the assets he / she poured into the game with the expectation of having an advantage. Think of it as a means of redistributing wealth.

Do you mean that :
- The number of ships you can field has no influence on the outcome of an engagement, or
- Alts, the computers needed to run them, and the money needed to fund them, are free?

- That just because you paid for alts doesn't mean you will win, because the opposition can (and will) have the same without paying for it.

So when a player running multiple alts engages a player running a single character, the single character player has the same amount of characters as the player running multiple characters?

When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no GÇ£pay to winGÇ¥.

"Not a factor" is the opposite of "You can simply get more people to help you out". I don't think you know what a factor is.

When multiple characters engage a single character, the single character is at a disadvantage. The single character can fix this by having multiple characters on his side.

Payment is not a factor in who wins, thus there is no GÇ£pay to winGÇ¥.

Good thing, then, that I didn't put those two in opposition.

I didn't do it because it would be complete nonsense GÇö GÇ£not a factorGÇ¥ is the opposite of GÇ£is a factorGÇ¥, whereas the opposite of GÇ£you can simply get more people to help outGÇ¥ is GÇ£you can't simply get more people to help outGÇ¥.

Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run. Payment is not a factor...

Then those accounts and computers are free!

Two players engage each other ingame. The multiple characters ran by a single player engage the single character ran by a single player and the single character is at a disadvantage, I get it so far.

The single player and single character can fix this by having multiple characters, that is, multiple accounts that cost money to fund, and possibly other computers to run.

GǪor by having other characters help him out, for which he pays nothing. So yes, payment is not a factor.

You paying a wad of cash does not mean you will win anything.

You're trying to argue that numbers Gëí payment. The problem with that argument is that it makes P2W a completely useless term because it makes all multiplayer games ever P2W. You are basically arguing that Quake is P2W.

The simple fact remains: paying does not give you any kind of advantage that can't be had without paying. Payment is not a factor in who wins a fight. Thus there is no P2W. You can play as stupid as you like about it, but that just makes you seem stupid (surprise!).