For those who cry pay to win

I really don't buy this 'being considerate to players with little time' philosophy - the effect of allowing people with little time and money to burn to buy progression is that it cheapens the feeling of achievement every other player (the majority?) gets from spending time in the game. People want equal rewards for equal effort and there's no way to consolidate that between game time and real money, it needs to be a ubiquitous resource.

I'd think the solution is to design progression such that there is not a huge gap in power between people at different ends of the cards unlocked spectrum and they can still enjoy each match, even if they join after a while of inactivity. And if it takes those people longer to unlock cards , so be it, as long as the game's still fun.

It seems my previous comments defending EAs decision not to use cosmetic only loot boxes due to what they claim are restriction placed by Lucas Film on visuals is a load of nonsense. They have been there all along and EA lied about it. Watch below to see them already in game but turned off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klO_5L-vNSM

I'd like to hear how they talk their way out of this one. Given this news I think we should not be encouraging EA to balance P2W for minimal adverse effects (as I have previously posted) and push for cosmetic only microtransactions with no gambling. I find myself in a position where I believe I should not be giving EA the benefit of the  doubt as I have tried to (in this thread at least - i think)  cos they keep lying.

So I hear a lot of people talk about this, and its always the same argument. How is it not advantageous for players with tons of time to play the game and collect credits, crafting parts, cards, "advantages" versus a player of equal skill level, but with drastically less time to play the game? As it stands now, the game gives "advantages" to players who simply have more time to play the game, ie players without day jobs. Since I work very hard at my job, I realistically only have a couple of hours a day to play the game. This would leave me at a severe disadvantage compared to someone who can play 4-5-6-8 hours a day. I am sure I have ran into players who have played the game for considerably more time than me, yet nobody in any forum or youtube video Ive seen on this topic mentions this.

It leaves the casual gamer, "whether skilled or not", completely hung out to dry, in terms of being able to acquire or accumulate some sort of perceived advantage, or star cards, loot crates, or credits, or any of it.

Is this not some sort of "TIME = WIN" scenario? Or TIME TO WIN or whatever. Hell, AFKers are currently able to acquire more credits than I can, just by being in a game running in circles, while Im busting my hump boarding ships in port at work every day.

I just think, it would be nice for a casual gamer to apply some more money in exchange for time, so they can stay on an equal footing with players who have tons of time to play. If equal footing is truly everyone's concern, why doesnt anyone ever mention this?

I believe this is a valid argument as well.

Id like to also mention that I currently enjoy this game. Its super fun, and my first experience ever playing a Battlefront game. Ive always played Battlefield, every installment ever created, but never Star Wars Battlefront, so the whole experience is fresh for me and very enjoyable.

Just my 2 cents,

@Ninfasbleak you ever spent 6 hours in line to something only to see someone with money bypass the queue and then thought to yourself 'well that seems fair, they must be too busy to queue up'? - I haven't. Or train 20 hours a week to try out for a basketball team only to find out some rich kid, who only trained 5 hours a week (because they train for water polo 15 hours a week) and has sub-standard skills also made the cut since their parents buy the sports equipment for the whole team? 

Why don't these scenarios seem fair? I think it's because we value and respect the time and effort spent on something more than any other resource, and simply don't accept money (which represents time and effort spent on something completely unrelated) as an equal substitute. 

Of course people with more time have an advantage, but that's the same with anything in life - you put the effort in you get more results, generally. The question is we generally don't like people fast-tracking with money, so why is this being a game any different?

Now suppose you're busting your hump at work (full respect for that) and someone else at work who works half as much as you, because they have another job, donates money for new uniforms for your whole crew - now when you're being considered for management so are they because while they don't the put the time in their donation shows that they really are invested in the business and the people - do you accept their donation as being on par with the time you put into your work? If it were me I'd feel insulted and undervalued.

To me, equal footing isn't everyone's only concern - there's also equal reward for equal effort. And in most cases I can think of, when money is spent to bypass time and effort it's just a huge insult to the people who put in that time and effort.

Rather than giving people with money and little time a fast track the game should just be designed so that skill is largely the determining factor in victory - and from my experience for far this is the case.

I think we are all arguing at cross purposes and that is why we cant seem to agree (except for gambling, kaspen and I have nailed that one). There are really two issues at play here regarding advancing:

A) Fair competition

B) Enabling everyone to equally engage at a decent level in the game

@Ninfasbleak  your time to win argument at first seems compelling. But as @Ravudha points out, time and effort spent tends to be an acceptable cost to advance anywhere in life whereas paying money over others to seems wrong to people in terms of FAIR COMPETITION. It is however more than just time and this is where the argument about paying to skip a queue doesnt seem appropriate. It is both INNATE SKILL and skill gained through practice as the result of time and EFFORT that are being circumvented. It is more comparable to sports people who takes performance enhancing drugs (those are paid for too). Do you consider the latter acceptable? I doubt you would. Some players unlike me are invested in competition and therefore dislike this.

However, I think your argument sounds like it is founded not on the issue of FAIR COMPETITION for those who dont have the time, but rather on providing those who dont have time the ability to also EQUALLY ENGAGE with the game at a decent level for pure enjoyment purposes. This is where I am at. Money for the latter is a very compelling argument until you realise that games companies only started making things take a long time and a long grind to obtain in order to coerce people into spending money to buy them instead. Back in the day before micro transactions  there was no grind. A little effort to obtain stuff maybe, but no grind. And no one ever complained, Everyone was happy cos everyone, casual and dedicated player, could get stuff and play at a decent level, and no cash was spent.

Micro transactions and grind were introduced to take financial advantage of the casual player who doesnt have time. The casual player has got used to there being micro transaction and so have forgotten that they are being taken advantage of. Forgotten the days .....before the dark times, before micro transactions.

Basically both A and B above have been subverted by EA in BF2. The removal of "pay to win" will also mean the removal of excessive "time to win" as without the former there is no need for the latter. When I and others are arguing against "pay to win" we are also arguing against excessive "time to win" in the same breath. I think we are all on the same side.