open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [TO CSM FOR ICELAND JUL1-3] No "Convenience" Based RMT
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.06.26 20:09:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Bloodpetal on 26/06/2011 20:32:28
Edited by: Bloodpetal on 26/06/2011 20:29:27



I want to focus on ONE item and one item alone for this.


This is the idea of charging for CONVENIENCE based Micro-Transactions.

Let's start with the ground work.

AUR is here to stay, one way or another and to be iterated on. This is not changing, but we can control what is appropriate to buy for AUR.


I am NOT discussing "Gold Ammo"/"Non-Vanity" items.


That aside.


Convenience based RMT are for charging players to "enhance" their game play by paying for convenience services provided by the game client or server. An explicit example from the "Greed is Good?" newsletter is the charging for more than 50 fittings.

I want to say up front that is a poor and inappropriate item - as well as anything related - for the AUR store. The reason for this is simple. That philosophy builds into the development of the game that inconvenience is a positive design element for the game and that convenience is something you can profit from through AUR.

We all pay a subscription and expect the absolute highest quality client and product. We should all get the same client, and noone should be asked to pay more for being less "burdened" by the software. I was the very first to post a thread about the limited fittings saved, and I would straight up quit if CCP offered me more fitting space for a price. The reason for that would be that is the wrong philosophy to approach the EVE Client Software.

Any premise for charging for such a service as more fitting space would be very poorly attributed.

The only argument that could be provided to charge for more Fitting Space would be "Your fittings cost us more server space."

The counter argument would be very simple:

What about all the items I have stored in hundreds of stations, without limit and without exception; including up to potentially thousands of individually identified ships, shuttles and so forth that I could easily have manufactured or purchased that can be said to consume "unreasoanble storage". What about the infinite amount of bookmarks that we are permitted to store. What about the infinite amount of "residual" data that we produce interacting with the servers every day that are stored for the future. CCP has no issue with unlimited data, with only one exception in "history" where they deleted an abundance of "gate bookmarks" from the age before warp to 0km.

The second argument is the Ship DNA code to store a fitting is documented in the WIKI and is a very simple line of code, and is very much not a large data chunk. Evelopedia Ship DNA Entry

The Third counter-argument is that a method can be implemented for client side storage, as it was done before the server-side storage. Meaning no server side storage issues at all.

---

To summarize, the premise of convenience based RMT is intrinsically to design inconvenience and burden on the player. This is not in the spirit of CCPs promise to its clients to provide excellence. It is also a poor precedence that can lead to finding other opportunities to charge players.

This absolutely must be clarified as an unacceptable form of RMT by the CSM on their visit this weekend.

I will be EVE-mailing this post and communication to the CSM members as well.

Support this thread please.


Conifold
Posted - 2011.06.26 20:16:00 - [2]
 

+1

Della Monk
Broski Enterprises
Posted - 2011.06.26 20:45:00 - [3]
 

Not to mention that you used to be able to store as many fittings as you liked locally

Mars Theran
Caldari
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
Posted - 2011.06.26 21:00:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Mars Theran on 26/06/2011 21:01:29

I invited CSM to take part in a thread I created for the purpose of gathering player opinions with strict relavence to Micro Transactions in EVE. What you want, and what you don't want. I'd appreciate it if you posted something over there, including your ideas and opinions.

Roger Qurm
Posted - 2011.06.27 04:30:00 - [5]
 

+1

Tiger Blades
Minmatar
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.06.27 08:21:00 - [6]
 

+1

B lou
Posted - 2011.06.27 09:01:00 - [7]
 

+1

Anja Talis
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.06.27 18:34:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Anja Talis on 27/06/2011 18:39:06
+1

David Vanthor
Posted - 2011.06.27 18:36:00 - [9]
 

This is the first issue CSM should tackle with utmost priority, eliciting a clear and definitive response from CCP.

Kitt JT
Posted - 2011.06.28 02:29:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: David Vanthor
This is the first issue CSM should tackle with utmost priority, eliciting a clear and definitive response from CCP.


This

T'amber Anomandari Demaleon
Posted - 2011.06.28 02:41:00 - [11]
 

there are already posts on this topic, but i support the cause!


Khamelean
Posted - 2011.06.28 05:09:00 - [12]
 

While i support this topic in that I'm not a fan of such convenience items being added. This is not related to the micro-transaction issue. As long as Aurum can be acquired with isk, features such as this are available to players willing to spend real money and also to player who aren't, they can simply save up and grab the extra features with isk. That being said, this issue needs to be judged on it's merits, apart from any micro-transaction issues, and even then i don't think it holds up.

diaufop
Posted - 2011.06.28 05:18:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: diaufop on 28/06/2011 05:21:30
An excellent point - I've played plenty of games that had built-in inconvenience purely to drive sales of "convenience items" myself.

Originally by: David Vanthor
This is the first issue CSM should tackle with utmost priority, eliciting a clear and definitive response from CCP.


No, the first thing the CSM should raise is getting an absolute, concrete "NO, there will never be any in-game advantages (including but not limited to: better ships, modules, weapons, ammunition, boosters, and implants) sold via microtransactions". No "there are no plans". No "at this time"s. No weasel words. No laywerisms. An outright, clear, concise statement.

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.28 14:54:00 - [14]
 

Quote:
No, the first thing the CSM should raise is getting an absolute, concrete "NO, there will never be any in-game advantages (including but not limited to: better ships, modules, weapons, ammunition, boosters, and implants) sold via microtransactions". No "there are no plans". No "at this time"s. No weasel words. No laywerisms. An outright, clear, concise statement.


emptyquotin'

Shandir
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.06.28 15:43:00 - [15]
 

We need a flat out no from CCP on this idea as well.

No "inconvenience by design", therefore no "convenience" MTs.
If the inconvenience is something players will want to get rid of, fix the game design with the $50m/year in sub fees - don't charge more to not fix it.

Supported

CEOcat
Gallente
CAT Corp
Posted - 2011.06.28 17:40:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: CEOcat on 28/06/2011 17:49:24
Edited by: CEOcat on 28/06/2011 17:48:26
+1
Originally by: Bloodpetal
What about all the items I have stored in hundreds of stations, without limit and without exception; including up to potentially thousands of individually identified ships, shuttles and so forth that I could easily have manufactured or purchased that can be said to consume "unreasoanble storage". What about the infinite amount of bookmarks that we are permitted to store. What about the infinite amount of "residual" data that we produce interacting with the servers every day that are stored for the future. CCP has no issue with unlimited data, with only one exception in "history" where they deleted an abundance of "gate bookmarks" from the age before warp to 0km.


Now you are giving them way too many dangerous ideas.

But you are right I can see them capping fittings somewhere but a reasonable limit based on actual technical constraints would probably be closer to 1000 or higher.
It is hardly about the storage space. You only need a few bytes of storage per module and like 1 byte to identify which slot it goes in. Hell the name of the fitting probably takes more space the a optimized code for storing them that the client could decode to an item. The problem they are afraid of is probably the number of database entries. They do purge stuff like bookmarks for every reason they can come up with to justify it too...I think they regret they didn't put a hard limit on that from the start.

Running a database with a huge number of entries smoothly is problematic even if the entries are just a few bytes. It demands some rather expensive database servers and CCP prolly want to cut down on adding more and more database server for different stuff just because people save useless clutter like bookmarks and fittings they will never use.

But 50 is definitely a rediculusly low limit. Well at least it would be if they coded the thing with damn REFRESH button instead of querying the database all the time with the fittings. Also you could probably do other neat stuff to increase the efficiency like move fitting that have not been used for a long time into a vault that does not get queried and does not need to respond fast but that players can go into and search for there old fittings and bring them back if they want.
They should do that with some more **** tbh, bookmarks and stuff that is never used could just be moved into an archive database, where you first have to go search for it in your archive that will take time cause the db is huge to then retrieve it back into the normal fast responding databases if you want to use it.


Doge Tzu
Amarr
Mimidae Risk Solutions
Posted - 2011.06.28 18:56:00 - [17]
 

Oh yeah, convenience-based MT will keep me un-subbed.

+1

Toovhon
Posted - 2011.06.28 19:19:00 - [18]
 

Got my vote, though I'd still rather see MT removed completely.

Darryl Ward
Posted - 2011.06.28 20:06:00 - [19]
 

Very good points. Supported.

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.28 22:23:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 28/06/2011 22:24:15
Agreed, I find this sort of behavior from software companies very distasteful, even more so for a product for which I have already paid. It's as if I purchased a full version of Photoshop only to have to see constant pop-ups for Illustrator and other nag ads.

I've paid my cover charge to the party and bought nearly six years worth of drinks. Tipping the man in the bathroom for a towel is optional, if it is not optional, then don't be surprised when I relieve my self on the dance floor.

DeftCrow Redriver
Gallente
Best Path Inc.
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2011.06.29 03:18:00 - [21]
 

Good points, well presented. You have my support.

ALLYOURMONEY BELONGTOUS
Posted - 2011.06.29 03:46:00 - [22]
 

I'm sorry I have to disagree. I don't care about RMT. I want my ship in the hangar. Yes that does sound selfish and ridiculous. That exactly how I felt when I read this. I understand your upset and I am willing to support you but lets not push the issue off the hangar view under the rug. It is very IMPORTANT TO ME.

Rei Shiyurida
Posted - 2011.06.29 05:16:00 - [23]
 

+1, inconvenience by design is unacceptable

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.29 06:00:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: ALLYOURMONEY BELONGTOUS
I want my ship in the hangar.


I doubt anyone here, in this thread, disagrees with that issue too.

And here's a thread in this forum for just that thing,
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1516746


 

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