Is offline trading pay to win?

"

exsea#1724 wrote:

notice the deliberate use of the word "advantage".

Again, advantage requires competition. You can't have an advantage against yourself. This is an incredibly basic word and being intentionally obtuse here isn't accomplishing anything.

"

exsea#1724 wrote:

if i had a pen can i write better than a bloke with a pencil? i can keep writing for long before the dude with a pencil needs to sharpen. there is no competition but you can see the obvious advantage.

That is the very definition of competition. You just created an example competition between a pen and pencil and declared a winner and then said "there's no competition." Like what the actual frick?

If there was a trading competition in PoE then buying more tabs to sell more items would be an advantage, but that's not a thing. You comparing yourself to other people because you can't help it doesn't make competition real. The ease or difficulty at which other people experience the game has no effect on you because you aren't competing as such there objectively can not be p2w.

The gaming term used in this type of situation is called "paying for convenience." Nobody says Assassin's Creed is p2w even though the games have in game cash shops that sell exp and loot boosting items, because AC is not a competitive game.

"

Astasia#2760 wrote:

Again, advantage requires competition. You can't have an advantage against yourself. This is an incredibly basic word and being intentionally obtuse here isn't accomplishing anything.

i cant argue with you simply because you're just eating the literal meaning of winning being solely defined by the need of a competition.

how do people win in a single player game? to me thats simply by finishing the story and seeing the ending.

you can go on google and search "how to win at solitaire", "how to win in minesweeper". people do ask how one wins in all those single player games. and those games do not have a real competitive component except if you want to compare clear times.

thus you're already intentionally ignoring the fact that win can be used in a context without any competition involved.

as for advantage, i do agree that you cant have an advantage against yourself. BUT, you can do many things that are advantages yourself. or if i can rephrase myself. give myself more advantages.

for example if i need to sit down, i can sit on the floor. but if i get a chair, its more comfortable and ergonomic. its much more advantageous to sit on a chair.

but in anycase, arguing the semantics of "advantage over yourself" is pointless. the simple reality is you're trying hard to argue a point that is already lost.

if competition is an absolute requirement for winning, then minesweeper and solitaire are not winnable. single player games cant be won either.

i m done on this with you as you're simply and stubbornly wrong. i gave you examples. you did not give a good counter argument and simply insist that winning requires competition, which was something i already demonstrated was wrong even before this.