But the test you used wasn’t whether the p2w item differences is significant enough. The test you used was whether it affected your ability to play. My objection was to the use of the second test. You should seek to be consistent in the exact criteria you’re using to differentiate acceptable and unacceptable items. Yes, the first test is related to the second test in that items that are insignificant would not affect the ability to play, but certain items that are significant would also not affect the ability to play.
Therefore you have to be clear and exact that they are not quite the same, and be actually wary that you prefer to use the first test which we agree is a sensible test and not the second.
I agree that how big the difference is would be an important factor for consideration. I accept your argument that little bonuses could be an attractive marketing practice that yields more benefits than complete blanket fairness.
However, with that in mind, I still urge you to accept these arguments: (1) that we should be cautious as small changes can set a bad precedent (2) that people may disagree on what is a small/big change, and this could be problematic in future if it happens. I think most people here are okay with 30 def which is relatively uncontroversial, but what happens when it’s something else that is controversial?
There will be a giant debate about whether it impacts end game, whether classes need it or don’t need it etc etc, and in the end it is better to avoid the whole problem altogether by demarcating clear boundaries as to what is to be avoided right from the beginning so there is no trouble.
Lastly, these are unrelated to our main argument but I do object to (1) the use of communism as a hyperbole; (2) the use of slippery slopes like cash costumes, which are, btw, obtainable in game in kTOS fyi. I just saw the reply and yes, costumes are in the category of clear non-p2w. The mounts are -perceivably- p2w as they confer stats, so you shouldn’t treat them as the same.
