open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked I've read "Greed is Good"
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:37:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 24/06/2011 13:47:04

Stitcher,

That vision of discussion is not not human.
Humans will discuss in any language or methods natural to them.

You offer insight into debating a technique to provoke consideration of the other sides point of view.
Well everyone has expressed their point of view in a format natural to themeselves.

You wish to provoke progress in a civil format.
Other wish to have their concerns listened to.

The methods maybe out of box and even passionate.
Overall, it is a organic discussion.

Edit: was trying multitask this with installing a web database and a phone call.

Zeimanov Kalzumaan
Haruspex Industries
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:40:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:33:34
A big part of the objection here hinges on the notion that MTs are bad, and will confer an unfair advantage on payer-players. I'm yet to be convinced of that, especially in light of CCP's philosophy as expressed in an internal newsletter not intended for community attention.


In the document ccp state that they intend to sell items thst offer a power advantage - ccps customers do not want this and were told we would not have them (CSM5).

Vanity items and concierge items are not things that make players angry - it's "power for $" that the player base is angry about.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:40:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Cyriel Longinus
Stitcher,

That vision of discussion is not not human.
Humans will discuss in any language or methods natural to them.

You offer insight into debating a technique to provoke other to consider the other sides point of view. Well everyone on this forums have expressed their point of view is doing so naturally.

You wish to provoke progress in a civil format.
Other wish to have their concerns listened to.

The methods maybe out of box and even passionate.
Overall, it is a organic discussion.









Indeed, mob mentality is well known for it's rational thought and productive outcomes.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:41:00 - [34]
 

All your ranting aside, Stitcher, why do you not tell us why we suddenly need micro transactions? It was not needed all these years while the player numbers kept climbing. And now that we get it was the PCU record this year not broken, but fell under expectations.

You can try to play the devil's advocate, which I have done myself many times. But the signs throughout the community say that this is a storm and not just a little upset.

So either you are not informed at all, or you have much better information than we do, and in which case you better share it or GTFO.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:43:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:43:38
Originally by: Cyriel Longinus
Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 24/06/2011 13:41:06


Stitcher,

That vision of discussion is not not human.
Humans will discuss in any language or methods natural to them.

You offer insight into debating a technique to provoke consideration of the other sides point of view.
Well everyone has expressed their point of view in a format natural to themeselves.

You wish to provoke progress in a civil format.
Other wish to have their concerns listened to.

The methods maybe out of box and even passionate.
Overall, it is a organic discussion.



If the other method of discussing this is valid, then this method is valid.

I choose to subscribe to one because I prefer it and believe that it's more constructive. Just because other people prefer to wave pitchforks and generally play the Rough Music doesn't mean I'm forced to join in, any more than it means they have to stop with the RABBLERABBLE and come do things my way.

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:44:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Indeed, mob mentality is well known for it's rational thought and productive outcomes.


Hey, it worked for the villagers whom evicted Frankenstien ...

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:44:00 - [37]
 

Stitcher, you said was a promise broken? yes, but some have to be.

I agree with you, but CCP should have told us they were breaking it, not try to slip it in the backdoor and say sorry honey I slipped.

AG

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:45:00 - [38]
 

A voice of reason. Shocked

Even though we may not like what they were talking about, they were just discussing it candidly, among themselves. Nothing is carved in stone.

And again, i'm not saying i agree with any of the opinions mentioned in the newsletter (except those of his holiness, John Turbefield, peace be upon him), but now that this entire thing has been dragged out into the open and we've had a chance to show our disapproval, we may have changed things for the better already, that is if they were in fact planning to go ahead with any of the things suggested. We just have to wait and see what they say later today before we know anything for sure.

Over the last few days i've lost a great deal of respect for the EVE community. A group of people who pride themselves on not being like the communities of other MMOs. No longer can we claim that. The tantrums, jumping to conclusions, childishness, and vitriol is something i'd expect from WoW players.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:45:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Cyriel Longinus
Originally by: Khamelean
Indeed, mob mentality is well known for it's rational thought and productive outcomes.


Hey, it worked for the villagers whom evicted Frankenstien ...



Given that the entire point of that story is that it's about man's inhumanity, unreasoning fear and naked hostility towards the new and misunderstood, I'd say it's an apt comparison.

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:46:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Mr Kidd on 24/06/2011 13:51:49
Edited by: Mr Kidd on 24/06/2011 13:47:49
Originally by: Stitcher
Or to give it its proper name: I've read "FEARLESS: 'Greed is good? the Gordon Gekko Issue'"...

...and I don't see what the fuss is about.

It's a discussion, a debate. It's a series of observations on the current state of things, and people's reactions to and opinions on said state of affairs.


One cannot have a debate with an inanimate object. The fact that there is a publication presented in the format of a "debate" merely indicates that no debate is taking place. Otherwise, they'd have the debate in person and verbally , not a publication indicating that the targeted audience has NO voice. But, we'll use your statement as the premise here.

The debate is not about having MT. That decision has already been made. Everyone involved is supportive of MT. Would you have us believe that noone at CCP dislikes MT in any form? Somehow I don't believe that to be the case. As such, it is a biased publication when weighed against your statement that a debate is taking place.

The "debate", as you put it, is about whether to have P4V (pay for vanity) or P2W. Somehow, I don't believe that the people with the strings available to authorize such a publication (even if internal someone still has to devote time and therefore money) are indecisive about what they want from Eve, more money. To me, this is clearly an effort to placate the descentors of P2W by including their point of view but, in the end completely ignoring it.

And if the decision is only to have P4V now, you can be assured that when the heads of CCP want more profit a few months from now than they're accustomed to there won't be any debate as there is no other direction to take MT.


Lets have a debate. Before you say anything, I'm going to hand you a piece of paper and then walk away. Debate over.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:48:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Given that the entire point of that story is that it's about man's inhumanity, unreasoning fear and naked hostility towards the new and misunderstood, I'd say it's an apt comparison.

Hey, Stitcher, what is the topic about? Is it that you have read a book? You are getting off your own topic now. Go read another book. There is more of them.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:49:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 13:50:40
Originally by: Mr Kidd
The "debate", as you put it, is about whether to have P4V (pay for vanity) or P2W.


It doesn't seem to me that P2W is being considered at all. What they're discussing as far as I can tell is P4C (Pay for Convenience).

"Convenience" is stuff like having an ice dispenser in your fridge door. Beats the hell out of cracking an ice cube tray and hoping some of the cubes make it into your drink, but you've still got to do all the work of fetching the glass, pouring the drink and swallowing it.

Tutskii
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:51:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Originally by: Cyriel Longinus
Stitcher,

That vision of discussion is not not human.
Humans will discuss in any language or methods natural to them.

You offer insight into debating a technique to provoke other to consider the other sides point of view. Well everyone on this forums have expressed their point of view is doing so naturally.

You wish to provoke progress in a civil format.
Other wish to have their concerns listened to.

The methods maybe out of box and even passionate.
Overall, it is a organic discussion.









Indeed, mob mentality is well known for it's rational thought and productive outcomes.


Weren't you a CCP alt? Where is the Monocle you said you had in the other thread bro? Chameleon? Seriously?

Either way, shouldn't we be getting a response?

As for mob mentality?

A lot of what I have seen has been polite and heartfelt, and the only constant is CCP's contempt and silence. This community is nothing if not understanding of them to the point of worship. Even now, we are looking to give them an out because we love the game.

But there is a limit to greed and stupidity.

There is a limit to corporate lies.

CCP was supposed to be different. Call us naive if you want. We are the ones that pay for all this. Our opinion matters, and if in hubris you will say that it doesn't, then say you loud and clear where everyone can listen. Show that it really doesn't matter, then.

We are mad as hell, and we are not gonna take it anymore.

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:51:00 - [44]
 


@ Stitcher,

Dont get me wrong. I do respect your ability to be the Devil's advocate. There are a lot of pitch forks and torches being wielded. So it's good to have someone around willing to talk in a format that is willing to connect with all views.

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:51:00 - [45]
 

I also think its important to note that opinions expressed in FEARLESS are just that: Opinions. They do not necessarily reflect incoming in-game changes. We had two sides of the argument expressed in FEARLESS because it was a debate, a discussion concerning the subject and very little more. I feel that we're choosing to concentrate on the negatives, or rather we're choosing to very seriously focus on one side of the argument. People are looking to burn CCP Soundwave at the stake and I take personal offense to that. I've met the guy, he owns so hard and he such a cool dude its not even funny. But even the coolest of cool dudes is allowed to have an opinion you don't agree with.

Hell, if half of the stuff I had an opinion on went into this game Gallente would be an unstoppable force of impending death and ruin. We'd all train our skills three times as fast and we'd be knee-deep in disgusting casuals and anyone who flew Vagabonds or Dramiels would effectively have their accounts banned.

See? These are all realistically terrible opinions but as a human being I'm allowed a degree of discrepancy for what I do and do not want. I understand that CCP employees are probably in a better position to execute these decisions than I am, but given the level of thought that I've observed go directly into EVE Online I do in fact have faith that CCP will see us in the right direction. I'm not even saying this as a CSM rep, I'm saying this as a player.

We pay a price for the level of social interaction we have with our favorite gaming company. CCP are more open with their communication initiatives than any other gaming company I know of and I've always appreciated that. However the cost is that we also get to see their TERRIBLE ideas. But given the stunning flexibility I've observed I think that amends will be made for this error, or rather this perceived error.

I know its asking a lot, but I think we should take a step back and think about exactly how angry we are in direct proportion to the size of the error that has apparently been made.



Cataca
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:51:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Cataca on 24/06/2011 13:52:10
In this newsletter as you can read (or not) CCP plans to introduce sellable Ships, Ammo, boosters
by the direct use of AUR, the new microtransaction currency. You might ask yourself now (or not)
why this is bad, ever since 4 years, the ability to use RMT was given by CCP itself
(you would give isk for gametime and so you could practically buy isk).

This is a rather complicated question to be fair, but lets look at the market for a second. The market
in eve is very unique, in the fact that it is a completely and utterly player driven market. Eve is by
definition a Sandbox, everything in it is player driven and controlled. The only regulations on the
market, are supply and demand.

Basically, if someone sold gametime to the eve market, he would pay someone real money
(in the form of gametime) to farm that isk for him. He then would gain isk he could spend the isk
within the regulations of the established market, and several layers of players playing in the market
will profit from that.

If we now look at purchases with AUR, things spawn in your station as soon as you throw real life
money at it. It screws over the industrialist, the trader, the mission farmer, the trader (again), the
explorer and the trader (a third time). It prints fresh isk out of nowhere, and is thus an isk faucet. It
will gradually destroy the market, and cause balance issues because the people that throw the most
money at CCP win.

It also puts monetary worth on the minerals used to produce ships. (opposed to plex, this is a
measurement on how much your gametime is worth in isk) If you look at high end ships like my
Nightmare, 1,4 billions worth altogether, you could slap a money price tag on it. Would i feel
comfortable flying a 60€ ship? You can bet i wont. Titans, the biggest shipclass is worth
70 billions+. Would people still fly 4500€ + ships? I very much doubt it.

Thats all, pretty much.

edit: spelling isk wrong is emberassing

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:52:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Originally by: Mr Kidd
The "debate", as you put it, is about whether to have P4V (pay for vanity) or P2W.


It doesn't seem to me that P2W is being considered at all. What they're discussing as far as I can tell is P4C (Pay for Convenience).


Someone did suggest buying boosters which would give temporary advantages. But that was just one guy, suggesting something. Doesn't mean it's going to happen and we should all spend a week losing our minds over it.

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:54:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Mr Kidd on 24/06/2011 13:55:52
Originally by: Bane Necran
Originally by: Stitcher
Originally by: Mr Kidd
The "debate", as you put it, is about whether to have P4V (pay for vanity) or P2W.


It doesn't seem to me that P2W is being considered at all. What they're discussing as far as I can tell is P4C (Pay for Convenience).


Someone did suggest buying boosters which would give temporary advantages. But that was just one guy, suggesting something. Doesn't mean it's going to happen and we should all spend a week losing our minds over it.


New boosters, new ammo, etc. Who is going to spend THAT much on new ammo that doesn't do anything new. The fact that it's in the publication means it is being consider. The fact that CCP is even approaching the idea.....IN A Fing PUBLICATION means they want to do it.

I'm sorry, but you guy are naive. Really. You guys are going to give CCP the benefit of the doubt every step along the way to P2W. And even then you'll find some way to justify why it doesn't affect you.

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:55:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Cataca
Edited by: Cataca on 24/06/2011 13:52:10
In this newsletter as you can read (or not) CCP plans to introduce sellable Ships, Ammo, boosters
by the direct use of AUR


Musing on the idea is not the same as executing the idea.

Valeroth Kyarmentari
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:55:00 - [50]
 

I've read it as well. On the one hand... yes it's just a debate. But in the entire 13 page document, I see 1/2 page arguing against real life money for game advantage.

Takemikazuki
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:56:00 - [51]
 

Blah blah blah…

Ideally, I would like the whole idea of space gold for vanity gone. Ideally I would like all vanity items manufactured and traded by players, so as Incarna would be an expansion of the player driven economy and the grand vision of the EVE sandbox instead of some lame vanity expo for a microtransaction experiment. But hey, as long as any item is also available for ISK, the ship is still sailing. Yeah, it is a lame pink colored ship where the captain wears a 35$ spandex suite and a 70$ monocle, but that aside, we’re still above the water.

Reality is: the MT model is here to stay. Question is: how to integrate that into the EVE Universe without undermining what makes EVE Online an unique player-driven MMO game?

Cataca
Posted - 2011.06.24 13:58:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: White Tree
Originally by: Cataca
Edited by: Cataca on 24/06/2011 13:52:10
In this newsletter as you can read (or not) CCP plans to introduce sellable Ships, Ammo, boosters
by the direct use of AUR


Musing on the idea is not the same as executing the idea.


Did you read the 9th page? That sounds short of execution, not musing.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:00:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 14:02:15
Edited by: Stitcher on 24/06/2011 14:00:36
Originally by: Valeroth Kyarmentari
I've read it as well. On the one hand... yes it's just a debate. But in the entire 13 page document, I see 1/2 page arguing against real life money for game advantage.


And here we see the sticking point. People (no offensive generalization intended, Valeroth) are so utterly fixated on the idea of real life money for game advantage that they mentally replace any other word - "Convenience", "Vanity" etc with "advantage" because that's what they're afraid of.

I fully agree, if - IF - a policy was introduced where somebody who threw real life money at the game acquired a mechanical, game-changing advantage over their non-paying peers which couldn't be acquired on the ISK market, then I'd be dead-set against it.

That's not the case, and we need to stop equating microtransactions with that sort of unfair advantage. They are meant to be a flexible system that opens a range of opportunities to developers, publishers and players alike, but the flexibility of the system is being hindered at the moment because people can't get past one specific potential abuse of it.

Hank Shank
Minmatar
Pan Galactic Corp
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:01:00 - [54]
 

Rightly or wrongly, it is quite clear that the community is completely against micro-transactions for items which are anything more than decorative. Debating the merits of these micro-transactions isn't constructive - very few will be swayed by anything but the most compelling argument.

Merits of the viewpoints aside, this demonstration serves to show that CCP has really only two options: abide by the wishes of the playerbase, or fight against it.

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:02:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 24/06/2011 14:03:55


@ White Tree

You are an elected representative of this community.
From what I read, the idea of how much the vanity items would cost was not expressed with you.
It was mused upon and then manifested.

Tahnil
GNADE Inc.
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:03:00 - [56]
 

I wish our company had such an excellent newsletter. Sad

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:03:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Hank Shank
Rightly or wrongly, it is quite clear that the community is completely against micro-transactions for items which are anything more than decorative. Debating the merits of these micro-transactions isn't constructive - very few will be swayed by anything but the most compelling argument.

Merits of the viewpoints aside, this demonstration serves to show that CCP has really only two options: abide by the wishes of the playerbase, or fight against it.


actually, the community is NOT completely against such things. I'm not completely against them, and I'm part of the community.

Admittedly I'm in the minority, but it's worth having these discussions or what you get is tyranny by mob rule.

Mr Kidd
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:03:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Valeroth Kyarmentari
I've read it as well. On the one hand... yes it's just a debate. But in the entire 13 page document, I see 1/2 page arguing against real life money for game advantage.


Yes, and when I study topics like Anatomy & Physiology and Microbiology I routinely take 40 page chapters and boil them down to 3 - 4 pages of notes and make A's doing it. Comparing the number of pages to the intent of the publication doesn't mean squat.

White Tree
Gallente
Broski Federation
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:04:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Cyriel Longinus
Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 24/06/2011 14:03:05

@ White Tree]

You are an elected representative of this community.
From what I read, the idea of how much the vanity items would cost was not expressed with you.
It was mused upon and then manifested.


One component of it was, but the reality of the situation is that the price of certain items in the NEX market were not discussed with us, and I think there was a breakdown of internal communication within CCP with regards to the pricing as well.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:06:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Tutskii


Weren't you a CCP alt? Where is the Monocle you said you had in the other thread bro? Chameleon? Seriously?

Either way, shouldn't we be getting a response?

As for mob mentality?

A lot of what I have seen has been polite and heartfelt, and the only constant is CCP's contempt and silence. This community is nothing if not understanding of them to the point of worship. Even now, we are looking to give them an out because we love the game.

But there is a limit to greed and stupidity.

There is a limit to corporate lies.

CCP was supposed to be different. Call us naive if you want. We are the ones that pay for all this. Our opinion matters, and if in hubris you will say that it doesn't, then say you loud and clear where everyone can listen. Show that it really doesn't matter, then.

We are mad as hell, and we are not gonna take it anymore.


Oh, I sold the monocle for a tidy profit. I'm all for people expressing their opinions, but I'm also for those opinions being backed up by more than FUD. As for a response from CCP, it wouldn't surprise me if they have spent this long just figuring out how to word it. It's easy to see from the response to the leaked newsletter that people will read whatever meaning they want unless the wording is absolutely perfect.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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