I'm going to try to keep this brief, so it doens't turn into a long-winded rant... but historically speaking, that's something I'm not very good at, so we'll see.
To the people saying "It's not pay-to-win, because you can't 'win' in lotro, you can just get things faster";
Result of statement: You are making a statement that says that a game is not pay-to-win, by defining the complaint as being *literally impossible* to begin with. You are saying "It is not possible for the game to be P2W at all." If that was your intended statement, however, then it is without meaning in the context of the conversation. You are not actually attempting to engage with or answer the other poster's concerns - simply quibbling over a pedantic definition. At the same time, you are also not actively attempting to clarify that definition in a way that allows discussion. What the above people then go on to define as 'Not pay-to-win' is precisely what the others who are upset DO define as pay-to-win. It seems rather that the ones defending it as not so just don't have a personal problem with that situation.
This brings me to the other half...
To the people saying "How does Bob buying his gear on day one and having an easier time of it affect you? It doesn't, so relax!";
Here is how it affects others:
You are a member of a raid group, and you like to join pick-ups on the side fairly frequently. You are good at your class, perceptive, skilled and responsive, and you pick things up well. You're a decent to good player. You are not prepared to spend $500 in the first few days of a release to rapidly acquire all the best in slot equipment off the bat. You'll get it eventually, whenever the random roll fates decide... for now, there are group instances to run that might get you things, and the raid on the weekend has looked promising. Even if there's all these P2W complaints and lootboxes everywhere, you're still excited.
When you try to join those groups, however, you frequently get knocked back, because the randoms calling want someone with better gear, and lo and behold, it's only three days in, but there are several people floating about running instances that DO have far better gear already. They get taken, not you.
But that's Ok, you reason; you don't know these people, and you can't fault them for taking what looks like, on the surface, the strongest bet. There's still the raid on the weekend. Raid night comes, and lots of people are excited to get stuck into it. Enough that a number of people will need to bench for now, while the group figures stuff out. Your friend is also a good player, like you. They are experienced and good at their class same as you. Quietly, you think you've got the edge on them, just a little. Quietly they probably think the same. That's normal and healthy. Your friend, however, WAS prepared to drop $500 on the first three days to rapidly acquire all of the best in slot gear right away. When it comes to selections, the raid leader takes your friend, not you. You're both good, players, trusted and highly skilled, but your leader wants the strongest group they can put together for this, so your friend is the obvious choice. Not you. You are left sitting on the bench; if this was a competition for who got that raid slot, your friend won and you lost. Your friend won because they were prepared to spend more money to buy it than you were, or could. They won because they paid more. They paid, to win.
At a personal level, THIS is how P2W culture and design affects those who don't want it.
It's rarely about "The no-skill noob who bought all their stuff" Vs. "The highly skilled and experienced player who didn't". It's almost never about that comparison. It's usually about two skilled players of equal value in game, one of who paid for gear, and the other of whom did not, and has not yet been blessed by the random dice fortune.
At a more macro level, as others have described, support of P2W culture and design encourages increasingly shoddy design... There is not a single instance where it has not, and LotRO is not showing itself to be an exception the longer this goes on. The visuals of this game might be stunning, and the story-telling might be great, but the game itself, as a game, mechanically and functionally, has done very little but go downhill over the past several years.
We can put up endless pages of feedback where the greater majority of it is posters and testers decrying, begging, pleading, demanding and otherwise arguing for a cessation to gamble-box design and other pay to win mechanisms, but it has only gotten worse and worse, despite that.
To the developers, a theoretical: What would it actually take, in terms of data (which we know only you can see), or uptake, or feedback, or any other variable, to cause SSG to decide to abandon lootbox culture and cut out the majority of their gambling and cash-driven incentives? Other games succeed without such things, and limit their extra cash incentives to non-impactful fluff: In a purely theoretical sense, what would be necessary, for that to be a game development decision that was actually put on the table? There must BE a scenario where that could happen, theoretically; what would it be? I know that's not likely to be something that any of the SSG forum mods and reps are going to be prepared to put a response to, but I'm asking anyway, just in case, and with the hope that a few people in your offices at least think about it a little more. Most of the feedback in this thread is railing agaisnt it, after all, even if that only represents a fraction of the player base.
Rider, Fighter, Virgin, Lover; Watcher, Chaser, Bearer of Pain.
Victim tormented, Abused and Broken; Rise from the ashes and Hunt once again.
And Vengeance Be Thy Oath.