open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked RL $$$ Alter our game.. Coming Soon!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 00:10:00 - [31]
 

Maybe it's the fact that almost all of the threads in general discussion and Assembly Hall lately have been specifically focused on over-inflated fears of MT, to the point of being more spam than anything else. I get ****ed off at Jita local too.

I'll point out again that you are speculating. If there is any more information beyond that currently provided through interviews and the like, it is currently the province of NDA anyway. Irregardless of which, CCP has to test the impact of MT for flavor on the game, before they move on to MT for progression.

Either way, PLEX already exist, as do RMT, and we'll not be seeing any truly game altering impact from anything CCP decides to do, unless it happens to be making Raven State issues available to the playerbase for $20 a pop. That's not going to happen btw and I don't really believe it should, despite at one time wanting to fly one. Fact is even that would only have as much impact as having a few proud RSI owners ragequit for two weeks.

The reality is, players would buy and lose these ships just as fast as any other, or faster even given the nature of the design. And if they didn't, it would be the result of them safe-boating around highsec and doing odd missions, or leaving them in their hangar to sit in once in awhile, much like the current existing RSI are treated. Either way, it's still a vanity item.

Time is money.

That essentially means that if I work 12 hours a day, then use some of that income to buy something in game, I still worked for it. I just worked for it in a real job, rather than slugging away grinding money in a game. Either way, I still earned it, and personally, earning it in real life is less time consuming, which puts us back to time is money. It's not worth it to grind for ISK in EVE. I can't make in 10 hours in Highsec, what it takes me 1 hour to make in a RL job. I don't even make a good living doing what I do, which makes that all that much more poignant.

If I made $100 bucks an hour, I'd probably think nothing of wasting 12 hours a day grinding for 100 million ISK. The fact that I have to work for everything in RL, makes me less interested in doing it for a game. The game becomes tedious; a waste of my time when I could be doing something else more productive.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.12 00:24:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran

Sounds like what you're really saying is, "It's okay if people buy PLEX with RL $$$ and use it to buy in game items, because then the ISK goes to me, but MT is RL $$$ going to CCP and I don't get my piece of the cake. That's just wrong."



Sorry to burst your self righteous bubble, but not everyone is as selfish as you. Stop projecting. My concern is the integrity of the game.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 00:39:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Mars Theran

Sounds like what you're really saying is, "It's okay if people buy PLEX with RL $$$ and use it to buy in game items, because then the ISK goes to me, but MT is RL $$$ going to CCP and I don't get my piece of the cake. That's just wrong."



Sorry to burst your self righteous bubble, but not everyone is as selfish as you. Stop projecting. My concern is the integrity of the game.


You missed this part:
Quote:
Okay, well at least that makes a bit of sense, and it's the strongest and most valid argument I've seen to date. Heck, even the RMT's kick back to the ingame economy once in awhile.
corrected a little typo there, but otherwise, I'm fairly sure that was the next line.

How did you get self-righteous and selfish out of that anyway? Projecting? Now I know you're full of ****.

Retnor Kilani
Posted - 2011.06.12 01:10:00 - [34]
 

Quite frankly, this is simply a way for CCP to make more money and sell the items for cash that they have banned and chastised people for doing over the years. It's hypocritical at least. I understand making a buck, but there are ways to do it without messin with the game mechanics from your core money train. I predict it will take less than a year for it to start seriously impacting the greater game.


Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 01:18:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Retnor Kilani
Quite frankly, this is simply a way for CCP to make more money and sell the items for cash that they have banned and chastised people for doing over the years. It's hypocritical at least. I understand making a buck, but there are ways to do it without messin with the game mechanics from your core money train. I predict it will take less than a year for it to start seriously impacting the greater game.




They ban and chastise people because they are breaking the rules. Point of fact: An American running an RMT business is not only breaking the rules, he is breaking the law and earning undeclared income. The only country I know of where this is in fact legal and encouraged is China, and it is still against the TOS. By running an RMT, an individual is profiting off of someone elses proprietary content and technology. It doesn't neccessarily hurt the developers wallet, but they are still selling their merchandise.

It's theft.


Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.12 04:02:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran

How did you get self-righteous and selfish out of that anyway? Projecting? Now I know you're full of ****.



Thanks for confirming my assertion.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 04:18:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Mars Theran

How did you get self-righteous and selfish out of that anyway? Projecting? Now I know you're full of ****.



Thanks for confirming my assertion.


Oh, good troll. Gotta give you a high 5 for that one.

/sarcasm

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.12 04:29:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran

Oh, good troll. Gotta give you a high 5 for that one.



Keep it up, you're doing my argument a favor.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 05:34:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Mars Theran

Oh, good troll. Gotta give you a high 5 for that one.



Keep it up, you're doing my argument a favor.


Quote:
Sounds like what you're really saying is, "It's okay if people buy PLEX with RL $$$ and use it to buy in game items, because then the ISK goes to me, but MT is RL $$$ going to CCP and I don't get my piece of the cake. That's just wrong."

Okay, well at least that makes a bit of sense, and it's the strongest and most valid argument I've seen to date. Heck, even the RMT's kick back to the ingame economy once in awhile.

Here's my counter argument though, and as far as I'm concerned it outweighs anything you could possibly say: MT are a direct frontal assault on RMT's. The PLEX froms the basis of this assualt, and allows players of any age to exchange RL $$$ for ISK, then use it to purchase nearly anything in the game. Unfortunately, that is not enough as the PLEX-to-ISK conversion is highly susceptible to fluctuating market prices and does not account for availability of commodities or ease of access to them. RMT's will deliver everything you want, to any safe system of your choice in game.

*snip*



Which part of this gave you the impression that I was projecting on you, my wish, (opinion), that CCP doesn't make money off MT, MTs shouldn't exist and are bad for the game, and I want ISK from player PLEX purchases to fill my pockets?

I'm confused by that, as every argument I make is generally Pro MT, to the point where I aggressively defend CCP's right to do it. Not only that, but self-righteous implies religious intolerance when I clearly considered your argument the only one which had validity of all I've seen, and Selfish implies that I have something to gain by MTs being brought into EVE, and want them there for my own use.

So yeah, I'm calling you a troll, and the fact that you just fish out one liners to insult me doesn't make it likely I'll see it any other way. As for moral superiority and hypocrisy on my part, maybe I am a little guilty of the former, but certainly not the latter. I won't deny that, and acknowledge that I often come from the high ground, but that is because I claim it and make every effort not to waiver from it. This doesn't always work out that well for me, and to be honest is often more trouble than it's worth.

My life has generally been one where I make a stand on something, and people try to find ways to tear me from it and make me as bad as they are, or condemn me for my position and treat me as ann unworthy individual because of it. I'm not religious by any means, nor am I Aetheistic, but I do believe in right and wrong.

I am perfectly willing to go through life without friends, should I not be able to find anyone who demonstrates good character, doesn't use or abuse drugs, beat their kids/animals, harass people, spit on homeless, demonstrate racial intolerance, or any number of other things. I made that decision a long time ago, and try to be tolerant of people even should they act in a fashion I would choose not to.

The only thing selfish about me, is that I want people to be better than they generally are. I'd also like, (for once), to actually make a reasonable wage, rather than plodding along earning less than your average stock boy for a job that requires technical skill, dedication, and efficiency to produce quality quickly consistently.

I honestly don't expect to see much from the MT system at all, and I'm not even sure I'll continue playing EVE for long. I'd like to try Dust, but if it's a carbon copy of EVE, with all the grind and BS from the community, I doubt I'll burn the money on a PS3 for that. Especially considering I barely have the residual cashflow to pay for sub's for EVE, and still have the ability to actually make an attempt at enjoying some small measure of life.

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.12 11:49:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.12 14:28:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.


Thank you for taking the time to reply in this thread!!!!!!!

The T3 example is interesting but if you break it down at current GTC/Plex/ship pricing a Tengu with just a T2 fit and 5 subsystems would cost approx. $26 USD. This is over 1.5 months of subscription fees spent on a ship.

As you stated in your reply there is a huge potential for the price of Plex to dramatically increase. An increase in Plex pricing would make your $$$$ go farther and potentially make you want to spend more $$$ in the money store. I personnally believe CCP wants the price of Plex to increase atleast another 25-50%. This will in turn drop the RMT cost of a billion ISK and cut the profits of the RMT players/companies. While stopping RMT is important, it is not so important that CCP should put up the "cone of silence" and not reply to the concerns of the player base. Combating RMT at the expense of your player base is also not the right thing to do. I fully support efforts to remove RMT from the game. I do not support removing it at the expense of the player base though. I also do not support CCP admonishing every RMTer and then jumping on the bandwagon themselves in an effort to stop RMT...

I am also glad that you have seen that CCP has already started "kneecapping" arguments against non-vanity MT. The concerning part is that they have stated for a very long time that they did not want MT in Eve Online. With the CQ patch they have already reversed course and included vanity only MT. Once again they stated they do not want game altering items in the money shop. By announcing full blown MT in Dust and stating that Dust will impact 0.0 sov mechanics they have taken another step towards preparing the Eve player base for full blown MT in this game. This is a major concern to a lot of players in the community, especially those of us who been playing this game for 5+ years. We don't want to see what is the best space MMO turn into a dollar grabbing ads and a lack of development in favor of developing more RL $$$$ sinks.

Once again, Thank you for replying to this thread and please share my concerns and those of the players that posted in the threads I listed with CCP.

Love hammer
Posted - 2011.06.12 16:29:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.

With recent news items on an alternate site quoting the Mittani as "giving a **** about RMT," The csm need not comment on this issue. Leave it for those who DO give a **** as the the CSM has lost its credibility in this.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.12 16:56:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Love hammer
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.

With recent news items on an alternate site quoting the Mittani as "giving a **** about RMT," The csm need not comment on this issue. Leave it for those who DO give a **** as the the CSM has lost its credibility in this.


How about some linkage of said comments?

Also, what one member of the CSM states doesn't always reflect what the entire CSM feels. It would be nice to see some other members of the CSM post as well.

Love hammer
Posted - 2011.06.12 18:09:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Love hammer
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.

With recent news items on an alternate site quoting the Mittani as "giving a **** about RMT," The csm need not comment on this issue. Leave it for those who DO give a **** as the the CSM has lost its credibility in this.


How about some linkage of said comments?

Also, what one member of the CSM states doesn't always reflect what the entire CSM feels. It would be nice to see some other members of the CSM post as well.
http://www.evenews24.com/2011/06/10/jabber-logs-purportedly-throws-proof-of-northern-coalition-leadership-allegations/

Specifically: rawr-hirr-rat-salat: Really, how much $ can you really make RMTing?
[08:44:57] wi-nyan-raidek: because we do
[08:44:59] rawr-hirr-rat-salat: A bil is what 30 bucks?
[08:45:06] rawr-hirr-rat-salat: so omg 120 bucks a moon
[08:45:10] rawr-hirr-rat-salat: I **** on your 120 bucks
[08:45:11] wi-nyan-raidek: x3
[08:45:15] wi-nyan-raidek: thats average dudes pay per week
[08:45:24] condi-gewns-the-mittani: donít call my bros peons
[08:45:28] condi-gewns-the-mittani: i donít give a **** about rmt
[08:45:29] condi-gewns-the-mittani: vOv
[08:45:38] condi-gewns-the-mittani: thatís not why weíre having this chat

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 18:31:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Mars Theran on 12/06/2011 18:36:06
Originally by: Love hammer
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
I would love to hear what the CSM has to say about the MT issue especially considering the quotes and links I will provide below.

My personal opinion of EVE MT, which I think is broadly similar to most on the CSM, is that vanity MT is fine, but there are second-order knock-on effects that need to be watched.

The most obvious of these is PLEX prices. Because PLEX are the only way to create AUR, the demand for AUR will increase the demand for PLEX, but the supply may not increase as much as the demand, and thus PLEX prices will go up. The most obvious victims of this will be people who fund their accounts by grinding ISK.

Another concern is that the economic cycle CCP has introduced (ISK/RL$->PLEX->AUR->ISK->PLEX->AUR...) has cleverly kneecapped the simple arguments against non-vanity MT. For example, consider the following thought-experiment: what if a popular class of ship (say, T3) was only available for AUR? Because of the economic cycle, these ships still have an ISK price -- someone somewhere is putting up the RL$, but it doesn't have to be you.

The "ISK represents player labor" arguments against non-vanity MT are interesting, but with the current economic cycle, the number of PLEX being purchased every month merely constrains the supply of MT items (of any type) and influences their ISK price.

With recent news items on an alternate site quoting the Mittani as "giving a **** about RMT," The csm need not comment on this issue. Leave it for those who DO give a **** as the the CSM has lost its credibility in this.


No, I think Trebor has got it about right, and you'll notice he states an opinion that is perfectly in line with how he has shown himself to think in the past. He's not blowing air up your skirt, just giving his honest opinion on an issue that is actually quite deep and sometimes very hard to measure in terms of potential impact.

Just looking at prices now, would make an player who relies on PLEX to add game time worry. Personally, that amount of ISK is worth more to me than 30 days of play, and I wouldn't waste it in that fashion. To be honest, it would very nearly bankrupt my character to do that. I'm also unlikely to sell PLEX at current prices for two reasons. I don't see the prices holding because I am absolutely convinced it's a false market, and I don't believe that buying and selling now would actually guarantee a sale. I also don't have the RL $$$ to spend on PLEX. Whether it would be an investment or a complete waste of money is irrelevent in that regard.

AUR will have an impact, I don't doubt, but this is currently the result of pure market hype, fueled by threads just like this to drive the prices up even farther. It's kind of like superstition: If you think it's there, it really is, (to you), but it actually isn't. Ideally the impact of AUR will be on Vanity items, and PLEX will impact the value of both, not the other way around.

When people realise that a vanity item is just an item that makes you maybe look cool, then their value will drop. People will still want of course, but not nearly as badly when they realise they wasted their money on something completely superficial. The reality is, the AUR purchases will drop and people will pick a couple affectations here and there, but never really get into it, unless they happen to be stupid rich. Meaning without any regard for the value of money.

That means 1-2 items per character, (main), on average unless they're relatively cheap, but in all cases this will be governed by the RL $$$ value of those items, or the ISK used to purchase them in gametime/effort. That market will balance itself. The exception to this is items that impact the game, (should they be introduced), which is what Vandrion seems to be afraid of. They would still have to be unique and unavailable by other means to create real impact, but they would.


Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 18:40:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Mars Theran on 12/06/2011 18:42:43
Link 404. Not to mention, that chat log isn't even credible.

edit: Haven't you figured out by now, EVENEWS24 is kind of like Globe Magazine: they'll make a story out of anything.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.12 20:59:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Mars Theran

ramblings



Rolling Eyes

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.12 23:42:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Mars Theran

ramblings



Rolling Eyes


Finally decided to come back did you?

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.12 23:58:00 - [49]
 

Plex even adheres to the investment of time and effort. Somewhere down the line someone had to create the item that someone sold the Plex to buy.......Creating an item does not include entering your credit card and having said item appear in your hanger.

Here is one of my posts from a thread in General Discussion:



Somewhere down the line of transactions, someone had to invest their time, skill and effort to earn that isk. Money shops circumvent this and ultimately cheapen a game.

Here is one heck of an assumption/example for you ( for the love all things internet spaceship related I hope it never happens):

What would happen if CCP decided to sell 1mil in skillpoints for the AUR equivalent of $5?????? Think about it....

To head off the current character sales argument there is one big piece of the equation that is removed:
Someone had to invest the time to train the character being sold. It doesn't matter if they never undocked the toon. It doesn't matter if they never did anything but switch skills. It still took time, attention and effort from a player.

The same can be said of selling modules in the MT store. You are removing the players and their connection to the game. Selling items in the MT store only is very immersion breaking in this regard.
A player wasn't involved in the following:
Training the skills to build the item
Gathering the material to build the item
Building the item
Hauling the item to market
Selling the item on the market

Absolutely no inclusion for the player.

Back in 2005 I mined the minerals for my first Megathron in a .6 system in my Vexor. When I had mined enough minerals to cover the cost of the high ends, I built the ship myself. The sense of accomplishment that came from doing all of this from start to finish was incredible. That sense of accomplishment is what kept me playing this game. From talking to other players over the years I have found that I am not the only one that has felt a great sense of accomplishment from doing certain things in Eve. Allowing someone to walk in and remove that sense of accomplishment by spending RL $$ kills a part of what Eve is........

Sader Rykane
Amarr
The Dark Space Initiative
Revival Of The Talocan Empire
Posted - 2011.06.13 00:31:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Takseen
PLEX.


I agree.. Been a problem since they started it. However, Plex as it stands doesn't allow you to buy game altering items the day you start playing. Some will say that selling Plex lets you buy high SP characters, mother ships, titans and fancy deadspace gear but even if you do that in this game it takes more then a few $$$ to buy an understanding of how they are truely used.

Allowing $$$ to out right buy an advantage in Eve has been something that CCP has stated they don't want for our game (hence keeping MT limited to vanity items). The tie in with Dust 514 and the ability to unwrap the game, throw it in your PS3, get your Visa out, buy upgraded items and use those upgraded items to effect 0.0 Sov mechanics is exactly what is going to happen. The opposite of what CCP has told us.

So, we now have two messages from CCP that are the polar opposites of each other. What is going to happen? Only time will tell. Until then the only thing I can do is share my concerns.


Yes it does.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.13 01:00:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Sader Rykane
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Takseen
PLEX.


I agree.. Been a problem since they started it. However, Plex as it stands doesn't allow you to buy game altering items the day you start playing. Some will say that selling Plex lets you buy high SP characters, mother ships, titans and fancy deadspace gear but even if you do that in this game it takes more then a few $$$ to buy an understanding of how they are truely used.

Allowing $$$ to out right buy an advantage in Eve has been something that CCP has stated they don't want for our game (hence keeping MT limited to vanity items). The tie in with Dust 514 and the ability to unwrap the game, throw it in your PS3, get your Visa out, buy upgraded items and use those upgraded items to effect 0.0 Sov mechanics is exactly what is going to happen. The opposite of what CCP has told us.

So, we now have two messages from CCP that are the polar opposites of each other. What is going to happen? Only time will tell. Until then the only thing I can do is share my concerns.


Yes it does.


All you had to do was read the post above yours but I will repost the part you missed:

To head off the current character sales argument there is one big piece of the equation that is removed:
Someone had to invest the time to train the character being sold. It doesn't matter if they never undocked the toon. It doesn't matter if they never did anything but switch skills. It still took time, attention and effort from a player
.

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.13 01:14:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Sader Rykane
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Takseen
PLEX.


I agree.. Been a problem since they started it. However, Plex as it stands doesn't allow you to buy game altering items the day you start playing. Some will say that selling Plex lets you buy high SP characters, mother ships, titans and fancy deadspace gear but even if you do that in this game it takes more then a few $$$ to buy an understanding of how they are truely used.

Allowing $$$ to out right buy an advantage in Eve has been something that CCP has stated they don't want for our game (hence keeping MT limited to vanity items). The tie in with Dust 514 and the ability to unwrap the game, throw it in your PS3, get your Visa out, buy upgraded items and use those upgraded items to effect 0.0 Sov mechanics is exactly what is going to happen. The opposite of what CCP has told us.

So, we now have two messages from CCP that are the polar opposites of each other. What is going to happen? Only time will tell. Until then the only thing I can do is share my concerns.


Yes it does.


All you had to do was read the post above yours but I will repost the part you missed:

To head off the current character sales argument there is one big piece of the equation that is removed:
Someone had to invest the time to train the character being sold. It doesn't matter if they never undocked the toon. It doesn't matter if they never did anything but switch skills. It still took time, attention and effort from a player
.



Sure, but not the player who bought it. They stepped into a 14-day trial, subbed, PLEXed, and bought a character with anywhere between 4 and 100 Million SP because they could. They probably went out after that, PLEXed again, bought 3 Cap ships, 2 Orca's, 5 CNR's, and a ton of Faction Modules too match. They didn't work for any of it in-game.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.13 01:26:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Sader Rykane

Yes it does.


This is false. Someone in the past had to spend time to make that character, even if they never undocked, that character was trained over time. That character evolved through normal game mechanics, even if they never undocked. In the most obvious terms, someone had to go earn the ISK to pay for that character's skill books.

Perhaps that character was a subscribed account or a PLEXed account. It doesn't matter. When someone uses PLEX to buy ISK, to buy that character, the ISK used to do the purchase of the character was also earned in the game. Someone spent their time and effort to gather that ISK. They went out, played the game, took the risks and got the rewards. Two things created in the game by in-game means are being exchanged, A character and ISK. The external factor that facilitated the trade was the PLEX, but the PLEX in no way impacted the potential productive capacity of the in-game world.

MT is not like this. Someone purchases a PLEX for $Cash and Aurumifies it, buys a MT gizmo and then sells that for ISK. The only means for that gizmo to enter the game is the $Cash. No in game effort, time or risk was expended to create it.

Personally, so long as it is just some vanity thing I could really care less, but it is when and if a useful functional element is introduced, that has no other source other than $Cash, we have a problem. If this happens, the overall productive capacity of the in-game world is directly impacted and influenced by forces that can not be initiated by in-game means. This will happen with Dust, it is a logical certainty by all accounts of the tid bits of information we are able to get at this time. How much impact it has, we'll just have to wait and see.

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.06.13 02:50:00 - [54]
 

I honestly have no problem with DUST using MTs, since its FTP (at least as far as I'v come to understand).

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.13 03:06:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
I honestly have no problem with DUST using MTs, since its FTP (at least as far as I'v come to understand).


Problem is that Dust is going to impact our 0.0 sov mechanics which by proxy is allowing RL MT to do what CCP has said they won't. It will allow RL MT in Eve.. One Universe//One war.

Not to mention at the rate CCP is going it won't take much for them to flip the switch and do it full blown in Eve.

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.06.13 03:11:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
I honestly have no problem with DUST using MTs, since its FTP (at least as far as I'v come to understand).


Problem is that Dust is going to impact our 0.0 sov mechanics which by proxy is allowing RL MT to do what CCP has said they won't. It will allow RL MT in Eve.. One Universe//One war.


Fair point.

However, we don't know how DUST players will effect sov. We just know they will. Their effect could be a minor one, such as slightly improving (well, in the negative direction) truesec. Or it could be something major. We don't know yet, and when EVE players don't know something, they tend to make a lot of worst case theories.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.13 03:33:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
Originally by: Vandrion
Originally by: Corina's Bodyguard
I honestly have no problem with DUST using MTs, since its FTP (at least as far as I'v come to understand).


Problem is that Dust is going to impact our 0.0 sov mechanics which by proxy is allowing RL MT to do what CCP has said they won't. It will allow RL MT in Eve.. One Universe//One war.


Fair point.

However, we don't know how DUST players will effect sov. We just know they will. Their effect could be a minor one, such as slightly improving (well, in the negative direction) truesec. Or it could be something major. We don't know yet, and when EVE players don't know something, they tend to make a lot of worst case theories.


Whatever the impact will be no matter how minor, it will have an impact on Eve game play. This directly conflicts with CCP's statement regarding $$ for advantage in Eve. The worst part of it all is that it does open the door, ever so slightly, for CCP to bring a money store crashing in to Eve proper. Based on the upcoming Vanity MTs and the lack of CCP response in the feedback threads (they made them just for this purpose) to address the community's concerns it would appear that we are heading down the road to Money Stores in Eve. No confirmations... No Denials..... No explanations........ Bad combo

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.13 12:02:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Vandrion
The T3 example is interesting but if you break it down at current GTC/Plex/ship pricing a Tengu with just a T2 fit and 5 subsystems would cost approx. $26 USD. This is over 1.5 months of subscription fees spent on a ship.

T3's were just used as a placeholder in the example; their cost is irrelevant, the point is that items in the virtual goods store have both a AUR and ISK price.

Originally by: Vandrion
As you stated in your reply there is a huge potential for the price of Plex to dramatically increase.

Economic interactions, even in a simplified case like the EVE economy, are maddeningly complex. Whether Incarna translates into a PLEX price spike or a collapse, increased volatility or a slow movement, or some bizarre combination is entirely unclear. My impression is that the good Dr.E would prefer that whatever happens, it happens relatively slowly.

Originally by: Vandrion
We don't want to see what is the best space MMO turn into a dollar grabbing ads and a lack of development in favor of developing more RL $$$$ sinks.

I share your concern on the abstract level. But CCP is a business, and the point of that business is not to produce the best space MMO evah, it is to make lots of money. If that can be done by making the best space MMO evah, great -- but never forget that doing so is a means, not an end.

This is not to say that everyone at CCP is a soulless money-sucking leech, as individuals they are not (except for CCP Flying Scotsman, but hey, he's Scottish, he can't help it). In the abstract, they too want to make the best space MMO evah. But while we play in EVE, they have to live in the real world and put food on the table.

So if you truly think that MT is horrible, then you need to help the CSM make good arguments as to why not doing something (like non-vanity MT), or doing something else instead, is going to put more ISK in Hilmar's Secret Underground Money Playpit.

Vandrion
Gallente
The Collective
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.13 13:17:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: Vandrion
The T3 example is interesting but if you break it down at current GTC/Plex/ship pricing a Tengu with just a T2 fit and 5 subsystems would cost approx. $26 USD. This is over 1.5 months of subscription fees spent on a ship.

T3's were just used as a placeholder in the example; their cost is irrelevant, the point is that items in the virtual goods store have both a AUR and ISK price.

Originally by: Vandrion
As you stated in your reply there is a huge potential for the price of Plex to dramatically increase.

Economic interactions, even in a simplified case like the EVE economy, are maddeningly complex. Whether Incarna translates into a PLEX price spike or a collapse, increased volatility or a slow movement, or some bizarre combination is entirely unclear. My impression is that the good Dr.E would prefer that whatever happens, it happens relatively slowly.

Originally by: Vandrion
We don't want to see what is the best space MMO turn into a dollar grabbing ads and a lack of development in favor of developing more RL $$$$ sinks.

I share your concern on the abstract level. But CCP is a business, and the point of that business is not to produce the best space MMO evah, it is to make lots of money. If that can be done by making the best space MMO evah, great -- but never forget that doing so is a means, not an end.

This is not to say that everyone at CCP is a soulless money-sucking leech, as individuals they are not (except for CCP Flying Scotsman, but hey, he's Scottish, he can't help it). In the abstract, they too want to make the best space MMO evah. But while we play in EVE, they have to live in the real world and put food on the table.

So if you truly think that MT is horrible, then you need to help the CSM make good arguments as to why not doing something (like non-vanity MT), or doing something else instead, is going to put more ISK in Hilmar's Secret Underground Money Playpit.


I appreciate you following this thread!

There are several good arguments against MT (vanity or non-vanity. I will mention 2:

1- loss of subscriptions. The threads are full of people stating they will quit if MT goes beyond vanity only. Is this just emorage? Maybe but I know that I will take a long hard look at leaving the game myself if non-vanity MT happens. No you can't has my stuffz!
Would the $$ generated by MT balance this out in the long run or would it only be a short term boost?
Will adding MT attract new customers?
More importantly will these be the type of customers that will be interested in doing the time consuming things you have to do in Eve? Sov grinding, standing griding, isk grinding, market trading, even travelling through the universe can be very time consuming. Eve is not an instant gratifaction game. You have to work for your happiness....lol
Will these new customers be the ones that are dedicated enough to actually train a character real time or will they emorage quit because they can't power level overnight?

2- MT even vanity items are immersion breaking. Below is a snipet from my earlier post
The same can be said of selling modules in the MT store. You are removing the players and their connection to the game. Selling items in the MT store only is very immersion breaking in this regard.
A player wasn't involved in the following:
Training the skills to build the item
Gathering the material to build the item
Building the item
Hauling the item to market
Selling the item on the market

Absolutely no inclusion for the player.

Removing player inclusion in the process also removes the players ownership and sense of accomplishment in the results. Eve isn't about having an easy button. Eve is about reaping the rewards of your effort.

If Hilmar has to fund his Underground Money Playpit then:
Raise my subscription price by $1-$2 dollars a month. I would pay a bit extra on each of my accts to keep MT away. The crack addict must have his crack!

Mitchello
B O R G
Posted - 2011.06.13 23:02:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
stuff


I appreciate the business argument, but you are forgetting one thing here. We're not talking about just any business, or a game design studio with a seperate publisher, or even a company which has multiple services active and in balance.

We're talking CCP here.

Throughout the years, I am sorry to say (and I can understand this may bite a little bit) CCP has increasingly decreased the strength of its brand integrity towards customers. That it has managed to maintain that integrity on a publishing and presentation level, is a given. That is fine. Ultimately however, there is more to business than just the sale. And this is a tradition of fixation which CCP have created for themselves. If they were selling cans of soup - retail - I would not worry. But it's a service, and CCP has ample precedent of simply saying one thing and doing its own thing.

That is CCP's prerogative, obviously. That does not mean it should not worry the current customer. Nor does it mean that it should not worry the John or Jane Doe CCP staff member below the executive. There is this fun little argument of hiding the cost of sales throughout divisions and ventures, yet at the end of the day cost of sales is just one factor faced when engaged in an ever faster going cycle of replacing elements of a customer base. Don't get me wrong, that is normal, but the speed and various costs of it should be monitored. CCP's metrics there, public and as we have seen over the years internal, does not give any credence nor confidence there.

I'm sorry. But where it comes to the strategic direction and the necessity to balance that step by step in conceptualisation and research on product development CCP is starting to drop the ball. Do not misunderstand this for some sort of slippery slope point of presence. That is not the case. On the contrary. It is becoming clear, that in spite of a lot of words and fancy talk, CCP on a strategic level does not just do what it does for strategic reasons. In many parts, the strategic objectives are ok, but the underlying argumentation is absent. And thus :lolexecution:

No, I know, there's a lot of presentation that it is there. But please forgive me for saying this, but unfortunately CCP has built up a nearly reflexive tradition rooted in only a few parts of its organisation where the only validation ultimately needed is "awesome". Regardless of the cost for customers, staff, short term, long term, and so forth. Think of the technical debt, it is not the only type of debt which exists.

As for CSM, I am sorry. Considering the statements of Mr Mittens in regards to RMT, and considering its modus operandi, I just cannot see this CSM even asking any tough questions whatsoever. This CSM neither will nor can do much as its chairman in collusion threw out its instrumentation. CSM6 is not a democracy, it's a cheerocracy at gunpoint of troll and spam.

It should be clear by now, that CCP as a company has long decided to change the functioning model beneath EVE. That they do not see this from an internalised view, is clear. Considering ample precedent it is however also unfortunately quite likely that they just do not give much about it at all. In spite of the love and care of those who actually work on the product EVE.

A year ago a lot of people, including folks in mainstream and industry media expressed concern about CCP's strategic views on the question of "what to do with EVE" and equally expressed concern over how CCP was stretching itself. Not in size of company, but in absence of simple processes, best practices, realism between presentation and delivery, and across a multitude of projects for which EVE continues to function as just something that feeds cash and shares resources.

It is becoming clear now. EVE, is just only a topic for cash. Understandable, but that does mean that the baby is dead. And yes, it also means that the old disconnects internal are rapidly coming back in force.


Pages: 1 [2] 3

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only