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

Faith Clothos
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:07:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
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.


And this is nonsense. The concierge distinction is an euphemism used because people have caught on to P2W and its proving deeply unpopular.

This is Eve. Concierge services are given by players. Look at EACS, look at station anchoring services, look at standings services.

All done by the playerbase.

That is the point and charm of the game. That one random guy can decide "jump clones for everyone" and leave his mark long after quitting.

Removing fittings so we have to pay for more fitting slots as discussed in the newsletter?

Disgusting.

Finally, that wasn't a debate other than the one by Soundwave and John. The rest was internal marketing to try and sell an idea that is probably as deeply unpopular internally as it is with us.

Shade ATX
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:08:00 - [62]
 

The title of their little discussion Greed is Good is not helping their cause atm

I dont have a problem with MT. late last night I tried to explain that it IS here to stay
and we might want to give CCP some ideas that wont destroy sandbox so they can make funds

I was of course burned alive but did not get a single reason why my idea wasn't good just alot of that's HORRIBLE. and GTFO

My idea was Learning Boosters. That's far different than buying SP and they could have diminishing returns at certain SP levels.

Don't be naive and think that there will only be vanity items in the NEX. WHAT is somethign they can sell ppl will buy alot of that will not destroy the sandbox?



Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:12:00 - [63]
 

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.
The point here is that after all the assurances and promises this debate should've never even taken place.

Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:13:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Shade ATX
The title of their little discussion Greed is Good is not helping their cause atm

I dont have a problem with MT. late last night I tried to explain that it IS here to stay
and we might want to give CCP some ideas that wont destroy sandbox so they can make funds

I was of course burned alive but did not get a single reason why my idea wasn't good just alot of that's HORRIBLE. and GTFO

My idea was Learning Boosters. That's far different than buying SP and they could have diminishing returns at certain SP levels.

Don't be naive and think that there will only be vanity items in the NEX. WHAT is somethign they can sell ppl will buy alot of that will not destroy the sandbox?





Clearly there is debate to be had about what exactly constitutes vanity vs convenience vs advantage. I believe that is the purpose of the discussion brought up by the newsletter.

Incidentally the title of the newsletter was not "Greed is Good", it was "Greed is Good?", a subtle but important difference.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:15:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Shade ATX
WHAT is somethign they can sell ppl will buy alot of that will not destroy the sandbox?


Vanity ship modifications, and clothing, which individually shouldn't cost more than a battleship. I thought this was the original idea, but apparently their imaginations got the best of them.

I'm even ok with one or two vanity clothing items being outrageously expensive providing there's a glut of cheap and average priced items.

Valeroth Kyarmentari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:18:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
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.


You are partially correct that is part of the fear.

One part, they are going to charge for adnvatage...

I quote from page 9: "Not all virtual purchases will focus on customization: some will simply be new items, ammunition,
ships, etc. that can be purchased outright. The devil, as always, is in the details."

That has alot of people scared. And if this had come out at a different time maybe people would'nt get so worked up. But with the recent stirrings over the current store and general lack of content in the expansion, well. I think people are getting very worked up about it.

I think people are also worried about being charged for stuff that they should be getting for their subscription cost.

If it were a Free 2 Play game... then maybe this wouldn't go over quite so bad. (Though I've never seen a Free 2 Play game charge these kind of prices).

Dust 514 is planning on selling game advantages (at least page 11 sure makes it sound that way). I was looking forward to it... now I'm a little unsure.

I'm just staying... the document is very one sided. With only 1 small section for a person who doesn't think it's headed in the right direction.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:18:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Khamelean
Incidentally the title of the newsletter was not "Greed is Good", it was "Greed is Good?", a subtle but important difference.


Not to mention that CCP have a tendency to be quite tongue-in-cheek, especially when it comes to naming projects, teams, drives etc. I think taking the title "greed is good" seriously betrays a catastrophically atrophied sense of humour in the people who are raging over it.

Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:19:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Khamelean


Clearly there is debate to be had about what exactly constitutes vanity vs convenience vs advantage. I believe that is the purpose of the discussion brought up by the newsletter.



There is absolutely no question as to what constitutes a vanity item in this context. It is an item that in no way influences gameplay mechanics.

The fact that you even state that this could be debated shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology.

Tla Atij
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:19:00 - [69]
 

When both you and I have equal skills and combat experience, but my ship/turrets/ammo are AUR plated, I will beat you. Then I will eve mail you to rub it in:

"I beat you not only at a video game, but also at real life, because I'm a bank manager and you're flipping burgers.

Peasant."


You'll feel great!

Yes maybe you will also have the opportunity to buy my AUR plated ship/turrets/ammo for ISK, but seeing as a goddamn monocle is 70$, I can't even begin to imagine what ships/turrets/ammo will cost. So casual players (or generally people who can't get/grind isk) will not manage.

Peasants! *waves roll of real $$$* I'M PAYING TO WIN!

Hayaku Codolle
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:19:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Hayaku Codolle on 24/06/2011 14:19:19
*looks at gaiaforum character in OP sig*

Am I suppose to take this guy serious?

Nominh Ehre
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:19:00 - [71]
 

In the document they also talk about LOTRO as a game to look to when it comes to MT. I dont know if you played LOTRO since it went F2P, but i have and i have to say that the day EVE copy LOTRO's model is the day i am no longer playing EVE.

A more annoying, nagging "buy buy" model is hard to think of. Every corner you turn you get a popup telling you how convenient it would be for you if u spent some money in the LOTRO shop. Just a few clicks and you can travel 60% faster, just a few clicks and you can access amarr space again..wait, that was EVE not LOTRO.

You see the signs allready. Cheap sales tricks are allready being implemented in EVE. Do you think it is by coincidence that the AURA balance is in color in your wallet? Its not. Its designed to make you look at it and think "hmm i dont have AURA, i should get AURA". Or " hmm i have AURA, i should spend AURA". Its so cheap and simple, yet very effective trick.

I am very afraid that we will see more of this. More annoying things telling you how easy it would be to just spend some AURA and you would be much happier. What about the day you die in PVP and you get a little popup telling you you can get your ship and implants back, just buy a "shipback pack" from the AURA shop?

It wont happen you say? Oh it will. Once they go down this road, it will just get worse and worse. Cash is an extremely strong incentive, and once they see that people are willing to give them money for things like faction standing and stuff like that, they will test and stretch the limits. Then they will test and stretch them again.

This game is walking a path that I and apparently alot of other people are finding disgusting and repulsive. Real lifes annoying consumerism is invading our hobby,dragging with them sales tricks and commercials. Devilspawns like accountants and advisors, douchebags talking about cashflow, cashcows, and profitflows.

And we dont like it.

Che Jin
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:21:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Raivi

http://eve.beyondreality.se/NeXCQResponse.html




What Happened to Star Wars Galaxies?


If you're serious about understanding why people are upset, these are the links you should take the time to read.

Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
Frontline Assembly Point
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:21:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Bane Necran
Vanity ship modifications, and clothing, which individually shouldn't cost more than a battleship. I thought this was the original idea, but apparently their imaginations got the best of them.

I'm even ok with one or two vanity clothing items being outrageously expensive providing there's a glut of cheap and average priced items.

Stop just there. You are already making compromises. The upset however can be a good thing if it is used to clear up what we want and what we do not want. So do not start offering compromises but voice what you do not want to have in EVE. Stop being tolerant for a moment and use it to think clearly about what it is you want. Then, when it is all settled can we be tolerant and make compromises again. It however needs clear statements by the community to help CCP out of this.

If we fail to give CCP a clear guideline then they will again just make up their own stuff, and if it happens too often, will we only get what they want.

Gallinari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:24:00 - [74]
 

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.

That's all. That's the whole thing. A lot of what's in there is well thought-out, sensible and academic. None of it is disrespectful of the community. Both sides of the argument are considered, and considered intelligently in the spirit of an informed conversation.

So I've become convinced of something - I'm convinced that people need to be challenged to stop, just for a second. Leave behind your knee-jerk objection to the idea that you might be asked to pay something in addition to the subscription, or indeed instead of.

There's a debating technique where you argue the other side for a while. You research its arguments, consider them on their merits, make an honest attempt to fight that corner for a little bit and in so doing come to understand the subject in greater detail. You might go back to your "native" opinion afterwards, but then you're armed with a better understanding of the issue with which to argue your point. Or you might be converted, and that's not a bad thing. There should never be any shame for a thinking person in being swayed by an argument on that argument's merits.

The foundation of the scientific method, after all, is willingness to accept that being proven wrong is just an opportunity to learn.

Clearly, the issues raised in "Greed is Good" are important ones to the EVE community. Fine. Good. well then let's discuss them, rather than falling back on our prejudiced assumptions about microtransactions and suchlike. Let's avoid emotive, accusing turns of phrase and start treating the opposite point of view with respectful dissent.

So long as the bulk of responses on this board are calls for heads to roll, threats to quit, or mockery of the above, we won't get anywhere. Right now, we've got a seething horde of angry villagers with pitchforks, and when the mayor points out that yelling "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE" doesn't actually achieve anything, they just yell it some more.

My name is Stitcher, this character is my main, and I agree with most of the content in "Greed is Good".


Bravo! Couldn't have said it better myself...

This forum is full of "Hey look at me I jump to conclusions" type of people...All I read in the Newsletter was a WELL thought out debate that included both sides of the arguement. If they really wanted to just go one way they would have without showing what both sides mean...

Its called being smart business men! You need to view ALL possible options and then debate the pros and cons and come up with a conclusion. This happens in the everyday business world people. WAKE UP!

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:24:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 24/06/2011 14:39:08

Originally by: Stitcher

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.



I'm curious, did you ask for this product or service?

I did not. Yet I'm being given the "option" of not participating in something.

"Your subscription fee gives you unlimited access to the EVE Online servers, website, and customer support. Unlike console games where you are purchasing the game as-is, the development of EVE as a persistent world is ongoing with frequent updates to add new features and improve your gameplay experience. Subscriptions allow us to continue making EVE bigger and better as well as paying our staff their monthly wages. CCP does not charge extra for game expansions. "

Since 2005, I have been indoctrinated into a expectation set forth by a little company of gamers in Iceland.

Now that company has grown to become a corporation in the sense that they use filtered language to shape their public image and reshape my expectations to include services that do not improve my gameplay experience.


"CCP is selling experiences and indentity" - CCP, Fearless "Greed is Good" - The Gordon Gekko Edition

I do not need to be sold an identity, I have one.

It's players who flesh out this sandbox, add uniqueness and soul to this place.
The community attracts other player to join us.

Not a f!ing $$ Monocles.

This community paid for Dust and WoD. We should be rewarded. Not be mind-F'ked with offers to buy more pixel items that should have been included in subscriptions fees in the first place per the FAQ statement.






John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:25:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Stitcher
Stuff


I think you misunderstand the contex of people's anger. The anger is because whilst telling us that Micro Transactions will never be part of Eve, they're actively discussing the pros and cons of MT implementation internally with their Lead Game Designer leading the charge for its introduction. If CCP had persistently said "sorry but we are introducing MT to Eve because it's essential for our continued development of the game and us as a business" people might not be happy but at least they would not feel lied to. As a result of the NeX store, they percieve this, rightly or wrongly, as the begining of a slippery slope towards MT in Eve which represents a betrayal of a promise not to. Nobody likes to feel betrayed but right now, vast sections of our community feel exactly that and that as I see it, is the source of all the anger.

You are right on one thing though. Now we've had an official ackowledgement of the anger, anger I have never seen after any expansion after almost eight years of playing Eve, we should calm ourselves down and wait for CCP's next move and official response to the situation. The most constructive thing people can do right now is participate in this survey which can be presented to CCP and allow them to better understand the issues facing them as a company right now.

Tar om
Minmatar
Octavian Vanguard
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:25:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Tar om on 24/06/2011 14:25:52
Originally by: Randomize All
Originally by: Stitcher
None of it is disrespectful of the community.


It's not disrespectful when my girlfriend treats me like a walking wallet too.
It's just disrespectful when she tells her sister and friends that I am her walking wallet.

On the other side, she can treat me like a walking wallet, because she occasionally sucks my dong. I extend the same offer to CCP.


Threadwin.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:29:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Bane Necran on 24/06/2011 14:31:12
Originally by: Nominh Ehre
This game is walking a path that I and apparently alot of other people are finding disgusting and repulsive. Real lifes annoying consumerism is invading our hobby,dragging with them sales tricks and commercials. Devilspawns like accountants and advisors, douchebags talking about cashflow, cashcows, and profitflows.


Only, it hasn't walked that path yet.

I also fear exactly what you do, but not only was the newsletter just a discussion, but the leaking of it and our response to it certainly will factor into any future discussions about the same things.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:30:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Hayaku Codolle
Edited by: Hayaku Codolle on 24/06/2011 14:19:19
*looks at gaiaforum character in OP sig*

Am I suppose to take this guy serious?


I'd be rather offended if you took ME seriously. I'd appreciate the courtesy of your taking my opinions seriously, however. Disagree with them if you will, but I really don't think the content of my sig image has any bearing at all on the validity of my argument.

Xenuchrist
STK Scientific
Rolling Thunder.
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:32:00 - [80]
 

OP and others here whiteknighting CCP over the "Greed is good"-pamphlet, obviously never worked in a larger corporation environment. It simply reeks management fluff-piece designed to steer opinions about an internally controversial topic. The only "debate" being one obligatory piece which pits Hot-shot celebrity dev against one of those (sorry) pesky nerd-devs still living in the last decade.

Throw in a some follow-up memos, a couple of Workshops and a Kick Off, and >80% of staff should be on the ball.

Bane Necran
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:35:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Xenuchrist
OP and others here whiteknighting CCP over the "Greed is good"-pamphlet


The Black Knight always triumphs!


Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:37:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Razin
Originally by: Khamelean


Clearly there is debate to be had about what exactly constitutes vanity vs convenience vs advantage. I believe that is the purpose of the discussion brought up by the newsletter.



There is absolutely no question as to what constitutes a vanity item in this context. It is an item that in no way influences gameplay mechanics.

The fact that you even state that this could be debated shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the terminology.


Some things are clear cut, others not so much. Most would agree that the PLEX system was a good addition to the game, but it is clearly more than a vanity item.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:53:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy
I think you misunderstand the contex of people's anger. The anger is because whilst telling us that Micro Transactions will never be part of Eve, they're actively discussing the pros and cons of MT...

Intelligence operatives learn/are subjected to torture techniques, military personnel run M.A.D. nuclear/bio/chem scenarios, common folk say to asphalt over the Arabian peninsula ..

The ostriches are in fact wrong in their assumption that a threat magically disappears when they stick their heads in the sand .. the only way to make something not come true is to understand it as thoroughly as possible.

I would be a lot more worried if CCP did not debate it at all as that is a sure fire way of it being brought in the backdoor.

In short: 'Talking' and 'Doing' are not the same thing and the former does not automatically lead to the latter, something the raging mob fails to understand.

Shade ATX
Posted - 2011.06.25 01:31:00 - [84]
 

Whitehound >


Stop just there. You are already making compromises. The upset however can be a good thing if it is used to clear up what we want and what we do not want. So do not start offering compromises but voice what you do not want to have in EVE. Stop being tolerant for a moment and use it to think clearly about what it is you want. Then, when it is all settled can we be tolerant and make compromises again. It however needs clear statements by the community to help CCP out of this.

If we fail to give CCP a clear guideline then they will again just make up their own stuff, and if it happens too often, will we only get what they want.

--

This gentleman is very well spoken and obviously a man of integrity and principle. Many EVE players up in arms at the moment to some degree are. The DANGER in this is that you simply must realize that your subscription dollars singular or en masse they may lose have already been calculated vs potential new income. I am sorry it is true

What he did state that I agree with is that as a professional myself.. I feel CCP needs input..their communications alone ala that horrendously titled discussion they were having about MT internally show their lack of a proper chain of command with studies..six sigma even would have been vastly superior. instead it was just lets pop an email out amongst everyone and have at it. They are not businessmen they are game developers

Many of us are moderately in my case but others of us are very successful in business. Throw out some bloody ideas that they can use to make money. and its NOT going to be just vanity. Your being naive if you think so.

I still hold that my idea of Learning Boosters with diminishing returns based upon SP lvl will allow CCP to greatly increase their annual whiles still maintaining the integrity of the sandbox core. The only ones that lose anything are the 5+ year vets and they have YEARS of living in EVE to deal with upstarts that get a few mill SP's frpm said boosters.

With these revenue increases we ask for CCP to give their word that a team of programmers will work on EVE while extra funds go to other projects

I'm sure there are other NON game altering alternatives that are there too.. ok what?

Jacoba Stalker
Posted - 2011.06.25 01:34:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: M14D
Originally by: larry hotter bigpants
You sir are an idiot. You MIGHT be able to say that page 2 is a debate, but everything afterwards clearly shows the direction they have choosen.


Don't be such a crybaby. You're blaming a company for being a company, and dare I say, one of the finer companies in the MMO world. When's the last time you had to pay real money for an expansion / large content update?


Not anymore, now they are the second coming of Sony Online Enema.

Thomas Orca
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.25 02:27:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Jacoba Stalker


Not anymore, now they are the second coming of Sony Online Enema.


On the bright side, I hear SWG finally died.

XSarah
Posted - 2011.06.25 11:29:00 - [87]
 

This is possibly the best thing I have read in a few weeks.

Originally by: Randomize All
Originally by: Stitcher
None of it is disrespectful of the community.


It's not disrespectful when my girlfriend treats me like a walking wallet too.
It's just disrespectful when she tells her sister and friends that I am her walking wallet.

On the other side, she can treat me like a walking wallet, because she occasionally sucks my dong. I extend the same offer to CCP.

Inquisitor Cerberuso
Hounds of Helll
Posted - 2011.06.25 11:47:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Inquisitor Cerberuso on 25/06/2011 11:48:51
Completely agree Stitcher. Unfortunately we are in the minority. Simply put; ppl have jumped the gun and now have a thought planted in them. Nothing CCP can do will change their minds.

My original:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure most of you here are really ******ed. You read a fancy internal document - Yes i have read it to - that discusses creative ideology and opinions between CCP staff. Then, without basic factual information, you are OMG THEY ARE BREAKING THE GAME.

I haven't seen anyone say in the document "LETS INTRODUCE UBER-FORTRESS-TITANZ". You are being ridiculous and simply taking the OPINIONS out of context. I do not see a roadmap for the next 5 dev cycles for Eve in this document. 270pages of whine becos you read the EN24 quotes and you are unable to think for yourselves.

Then you knock at CCPs door and demand for an explanation - which Zulu have given. You also demand for an apology. They can't apologise if most of you are ******ed Daily Mail readers. Then you carry on protesting; Thats it, keep logging in, keep New Eden active its fun.

If you are a player and you really think CCP would introduce a game breaking disadvantage to honest but not-so-well-off players then you might aswell give me your stuff and quit. Because you have this stupid idea planted, nothing CCP will say will be good enough.

I DON'T SEE YOU PROTESTING ABOUT BOTTING AND MACRO'ING WHICH GIVE MOST NULL SEC ALLIANCES AN ADVANTAGE


Again, no-one protestes about botting and macro'ing which is gamebreaking and against the TOC, but then 1/3 of Eve do it.

Katrina Bekers
Gallente
Fighters Squadron
Posted - 2011.06.25 14:38:00 - [89]
 

I appreciate this thread because it's the most balanced, no-nonsense, calm and reasonable analysis I can find these days.

I thank you for this approach, in a time where the pitchfork may be seen as a shortcut to bypass the messenger, the message and the recipient too.

However:
Originally by: Stitcher
What they're considering selling is convenience, not advantage.

This is a distinction I rather avoid. It's in the nature of the game itself to being based on unconveniences, and forcing players (and corps, and allies) to work their way around them.

Example: if it wasn't an unconvenience to go to a trade hub to find what you need (and a convenience having your next ship/fit/resource being shipped to your actual position), there wouldn't be a real market to talk about. Nor gatecampers gloating over a popped freighter. Or logistic heavy alliances having an upper hand against those who can't/won't move stuff around. Trading is based on lazyness. If you're given a way to pay out of lazyness, there wouldn't be market to speak of. Selling such a thing as "safe transport of goods" wouldn't break the game (you'd die in the next fight just as much as you did in the previous one), but gives a convenience which basically destroys a large part of the "player driven" universe we're so sold about.

And this is the first thing passing thru my mind when I hear about a convenience that's not an advantage.

Beware of this convenience/advantage sophism, the slope is very slippery, and I'm more worried about the unintended consequences than the obvious ones. This is the game where every feature is metagamed and twisted beyond comprehension. Being lenient toward conveniences would help it become a bank-manager-vs-burger-flipper race more than it is already.

...And this is the fear of someone with a bank manager salary, mind you!

Sleven Saken
Posted - 2011.06.25 14:42:00 - [90]
 

+1 from me Stitcher


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