Forum Discussion

Seasoned Adventurer

1 month ago

Slowly becoming pay to win

Title says it all. Some of the new premade builds coming out are just too good. Jean Spectre Sniper anyone? What a joke. They are slowly making this a pay to win in WOC but are doing it very sneak...

feedback

KidShowtime1867

Hero

1 month ago

The disagreement here isn’t really about whether premade builds are stronger. Most people actually agree that some of them are. The real argument is about definitions of pay to win.

Premade builds do not guarantee wins. Skill, positioning, reads, stamina management, and team play still decide most games. Good players and organized teams can and do beat teams using premades. That part isn’t in dispute.

Where concern is valid is that some premade builds offer stat distributions, AP efficiency, and X-Factor combinations that cannot be replicated with custom builds, and in some cases are locked behind payment or expired seasons. That means paying can provide a real advantage, especially when teams are evenly matched. I get that.

So this isn’t “hard” pay-to-win where you must pay to compete, but it does fit what many people mean by soft or advantage-based P2W: paying doesn’t buy wins, but it can shift outcomes more often when skill levels are close.

I think the issue is about competitive integrity.

If paid builds continue to outpace what customs can achieve, customization loses meaning and meta pressure increases. That’s the slippery slope people are worried about, and it’s a fair concern even if you don’t believe the game is fully p2w right now.

I think skill still matters most, but paid advantages are real and I do concede that EA needs to be careful where this goes.

Modulater83
New Hotshot
1 month ago
I think we've gotten there, but its really been a semantics argument all along. I think everyone actually agrees on the basic premise that some of the pre-made builds confer an advantage that custom builds cannot match. Personally I fall into P2W being a binary designation. Are the items you can purchase strictly for aesthetic effect and offer no change to actual gameplay? Many games stop there with their microtransactions to self-police. Once you cross the line into paying for any type of gameplay enhancement, even if its just to reduce grinding time, you are now in P2W territory. Maybe it needs a better label, as the enhancements exist on a spectrum of slight advantage to completely unfair, but money still can now provide a leg up and for me that's P2W.
I think its a bad look, and a bad element for EA to introduce at all for EASHL as it moves the mode away from the concept of a competitive league. Besides my distaste for the wacky garbage of lining up for a faceoff across from an alien, or a kraken, or whatnot, I really don't like the idea of not every build working under the same constraints. It breaks part of what I enjoyed about EASHL.
- KidShowtime1867
  Hero
  1 month ago
  Modulater83 wrote:
  its really been a semantics argument all along
  Agreed and I did nothing to help guide us away from that yesterday. My apologies.
  Modulater83 wrote:
  Once you cross the line into paying for any type of gameplay enhancement, even if its just to reduce grinding time, you are now in P2W territory
  I'm inclined to agree but like you said - maybe it needs a better label than 'pay to win'.
  Modulater83 wrote:
  I really don't like the idea of not every build working under the same constraints. It breaks part of what I enjoyed about EASHL.
  I agree 100%. I am not a fan of the premades at all, but I've always disagreed they are pay to win. However, I can see the points made in this thread and how it can be interpreted as such.