open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Ships for $
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (29)

Author Topic

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:38:00 - [391]
 

Originally by: Rodj Blake
Originally by: Skippermonkey

personal preference would be for the AUR shop to sell BPC's ONLY, not pre-made ships

Even selling BPCs for Aurum would go against CCP's promise of only having MTs for vanity items.


The best choice is probably "Aur + BPC = Vanity BPC". This way the BPC maker still gets his chance, the miner still gets his chance, and so forth. The Vanity ships them selves will still land on the market. The crappy part for the Aurum user is he has to use contracts to move the BPC. Since they want Aur items to move on the market and make them worth the effort, so they can sell more Aurum stuff, is why we likely see the system the way it is, with the "thing" easily dropped on the market being the end product of the Ignoble Exchange.

CCP should have done what Akita mentioned and had a paint job slot, or come up with a BPX, that can never have more than one run and can be stacked. Then they wouldn't have to forget how copy labs worked, but then of course they'd have to figure out how manufacturing jobs work and read that BPC copy number they're so confused about.

Kate Rygel
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:46:00 - [392]
 

Edited by: Kate Rygel on 14/06/2011 13:46:42
Originally by: Evelgrivion
... Electronic Arts already has a member in CCP's board of directors. ...



If that is true, that answers alot of questions about the stupid **** CCP has been doing in recent years.

--- I don't doubt that it is true, I'm just too lazy/uninterested to go verify it.

Mesacc
Gallente
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:52:00 - [393]
 

Another SWG vet here to add my 2 cents.

Watch out CCP. your on a slipery slope! I came here after the NGE hit and I see this game sliping down the dark path! Your already wheeling and dealing with Sony with Dust. Whats next? No-trade trading card game? Turrents and launchers replaced with specials? Ships given away as mission rewards? No more penalty to dieing? Will our ships re-spawn in the station when we get killed? How about insta-travel vehicles? Magicly transport your ship to any station in the EVE verse at any time? ohoh, cant forget fery wings and angel halos!!

Maybee Im being paranoid, but I remember seeing threads just like this one pre-NGE. I just dont wanna see another game I love go down the tubes!

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:55:00 - [394]
 

Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.

Soden Rah
Gallente
EVE University
Ivy League
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:57:00 - [395]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.


Great... could you guys weigh in on the deployment of CQ please. At least go so far as to try to get CCP to actually answer the questions we are asking rather than answer the questions they want us to be asking. Incarna is coming out a hell of a lot sooner than the issues raised in this thread.

Silas Cooper
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:59:00 - [396]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.


If you, as CSM, agreed to and/or bought the direct AUR<>ship exchange thing as it's presented now without protest, then you as you a group are the most fail CSM ever.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:59:00 - [397]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.

The problem was that providing the hull first wasn't going to be necessary for 3-4 months, thereby sidestepping the producer market.

WhyAmIPoor
Posted - 2011.06.14 13:59:00 - [398]
 

I might make a corp dedicated to suicide ganking anything MT related

Ana Vyr
Caldari
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:00:00 - [399]
 

This whole idea is just pure garbage, CCP. I give it two months before you can buy a sparkle pony without having to trade in squat.

moneykeeper
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:00:00 - [400]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.


Yup, you get flown out to iceland, put up in a nice hotel and given a bunch of freebies. Then the nice man at CCP asks you to just agree to these little changes that won't affect you with your billions of isk. How could you refuse?

CSM deligates are wothless. They are interested in themselves and nothing else.

Darod Zyree
Gallente
Zyree Holding
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:01:00 - [401]
 

Edited by: Darod Zyree on 14/06/2011 14:01:56
Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.




Originally by: CCP Zinfandel

The CSM didn't like the idea of selling a whole ship, but they could live with a one week test.



Vile rat can you tell us which CSM member was for a one week test of messing up our sandbox?
CSM members are posting that they are against any form in ship for Aurum, yet CCP Zinfandel just wrote that you guys were ok with this.

Someone is not telling the whole truth?


Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:01:00 - [402]
 

Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.

The problem was that providing the hull first wasn't going to be necessary for 3-4 months, thereby sidestepping the producer market.


I do not agree with anything that sidesteps the producer market. You need to have to have a produced scorpion first for this to be something I'd support. In general though I don't have any issue with MT that are purely for cosmetics.

HeIIfire11
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:03:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages *snip*


Then let someone who will read 14 pages take over the job you can't be bothered to do.

My 2 isk.

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:03:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. [...] It has to do that though.

Originally by: Silas Cooper
If you, as CSM, agreed to and/or bought the direct AUR<>ship exchange thing as it's presented now without protest, then you as you a group are the most fail CSM ever.

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

Fake edit: god damn two minutes timer, I'm not going too fast! *kicks two-minute-timer in the nuts* Also, stop resetting to two minutes after I failed to send a post *grrrr* Evil or Very Mad

Adrian Idaho
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:06:00 - [405]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.

The problem was that providing the hull first wasn't going to be necessary for 3-4 months, thereby sidestepping the producer market.


I do not agree with anything that sidesteps the producer market. You need to have to have a produced scorpion first for this to be something I'd support. In general though I don't have any issue with MT that are purely for cosmetics.

Yes, I understood your position, I just wanted to summarize the 14 pages to the single, defining problem (I didn't bother reading the first 6 pages neither Wink).

Silas Cooper
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:07:00 - [406]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Originally by: Adrian Idaho
Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.

The problem was that providing the hull first wasn't going to be necessary for 3-4 months, thereby sidestepping the producer market.


I do not agree with anything that sidesteps the producer market. You need to have to have a produced scorpion first for this to be something I'd support. In general though I don't have any issue with MT that are purely for cosmetics.


Have you been paying attention at all? Right now the plan is to be able to buy said Scorp for AUR, without having to trade in anything else, let alone another Scorp. They'll "change" that soon™, since when do people who have played for more than 6 months really expect CCP to deliver on soon™? And why didn't the CSM protest and ask for the new ship to implement as soon™ happens, afterall, it's just 3-4 months right?


Apart from that, is the AUR amount going to chance the moment people have to also hand in a normal scorp or is that kinda not thought of, as the plan always ways for a direct AUR<>item exchange?

Ciar Meara
Amarr
Virtus Vindice
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:15:00 - [407]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:



Then you shouldn't be CSM, this thread even mentions the CSM as prime movers in this debate.

How did you get elected, on a platform of 'I like to feel important but don't like making an effort'.

GTFO


EightGuns Giovanni
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:16:00 - [408]
 

What happens to the bought item if it's destroyed???? I haven't played any MT type games, but aren't most of those bought items permanent?

So if I lose my scorp in a fight I should have another waiting for me in my hangar correct???
I did pay money for the item and should not have to buy another.

And if I dont get another why bother to buy one in the first place because we all know in EvE loss is real and can be painful.

mvrck22
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:17:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read 14 pages but here's what I remember:

Scorpions with fancy paint jobs are firmly in the "ok sure it doesn't impact gameplay aside from being some shiny thing that somebody might want to buy to customize their gameplay experience" category.

You need to provide that hull first though so you're not sidestepping the producer market. I don't have an issue with MT that are purely cosmetic and as long as it does that then who cares. It has to do that though.


You're a CSM delegate. Make some effort, seriously. At minimum get together with other delegates who have made the effort and map out trends in the thread and notable posts thusfar.

salty Milk
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:18:00 - [410]
 

Originally by: Vile rat
Not going to read anything the CSM output but here's what I remember:


Free holidays to Iceland to help everybody swallow CCP's ****ty pills. Oh and getting heads up information on which they can profit massively with their buddies and alts.

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:20:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: CCP Zinfandel


It can't do trade-in's.
It can't do BPCs.
It can't sell anything that requires a user interface to use.
It can't highlight an item on sale (they will look like the non sale items.)
It can't sort/filter and only show you one kind of item.



Then it isn't ready to be released, and should be delayed until such time as it is.

That is, if the trust and respect of your long term subscribers means a damn to you.

If not, then by all means, carry on. Maybe you'll have more luck fooling the WoD subscribers into thinking you give a damn.

CCP Zinfandel

Posted - 2011.06.14 14:20:00 - [412]
 

Originally by: Silas Cooper


Have you been paying attention at all? Right now the plan is to be able to buy said Scorp for AUR, without having to trade in anything else, let alone another Scorp. They'll "change" that soon™, since when do people who have played for more than 6 months really expect CCP to deliver on soon™? And why didn't the CSM protest and ask for the new ship to implement as soon™ happens, afterall, it's just 3-4 months right?


Apart from that, is the AUR amount going to chance the moment people have to also hand in a normal scorp or is that kinda not thought of, as the plan always ways for a direct AUR<>item exchange?


No, I think you might have missed a post. The plan is to put the ship into the EVE client for Incarna 1.0 but not put any in the game yet. In August, we will evaluate how things are going, how long until the store can support either BCPs or trade-ins, and then work with the CSM to pick a launch schedule for the ship.

We are holding it back to go slower.

Misha M'Liena
Amarr
21st Eridani Lighthorse
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:21:00 - [413]
 

Lady Silas Cooper. You can give it a rest. Vile rat is a csm. He is bought and paid for. He is simply saying words to make people forget the true horror of this proposal. He isn't for this particular ship idea.

BUT HE LIKES EVERYTHING ELSE MT STANDS FOR!!!!

Misha


Ps. I wonder Vile Rat, how much free goodies did it take you to, Throw the players of eve *Under the bus* I mean seriously.... a free signed pic of Zinfadel? What? three beers? I want to know your price.

Takseen
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:22:00 - [414]
 

Originally by: EightGuns Giovanni
What happens to the bought item if it's destroyed???? I haven't played any MT type games, but aren't most of those bought items permanent?
So if I lose my scorp in a fight I should have another waiting for me in my hangar correct???
I did pay money for the item and should not have to buy another.
And if I dont get another why bother to buy one in the first place because we all know in EvE loss is real and can be painful.

Most items in general in other MMOs are permanent, whether they're acquired via in-game activities or microtransactions. If you buy an Ishukone Scorpion and it asplodes, you lose your cash investment. If you buy Plex for cash, convert it to ISK and buy a regular Scorpion which then asplodes, you've also lost your investment.

The only difference here with the proposed implementation(that's being changed anyway) is that it would have injected free minerals into the economy and bypassed the ship production process, simple though it may be.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:23:00 - [415]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 14/06/2011 14:35:57
Originally by: Clair Bear
This establishes a firm CCP-sponsored cap/floor on mineral prices and ISK to GTC conversion. Think either insuring and SDing navy ships for ISK directly, or reprocessing them for minerals. One is an ISK faucet, the other a mineral faucet. Both have CCP, as opposed to players, firmly dictating exactly how much ISK or minerals are worth, in real world $.

I am surprised this took so long to be spotted. Even assuming you accept MT for spawning valuables out of thin air, this ****s with the markets big time. It's like in the old days with artificial caps/floors on mineral prices.

Originally by: HeIIfire11
How is this any different from buying isk online? Some bot had to create that isk too. If it was a hacked account that hacked person also had to earn that isk.

Because even the valuables sold by RMTers weren't spawned out of thin air.

Quote:
I told you all that plex was the start and here is that slippery slope everyone was talking about.

PLEX was quite reasonable and a good way to curb RMTing. Also, it doesn't spawn ISK/items out of thin air. You can sell it for those, but then someone else made the effort to get them.

What CCP is doing now IS spawning stuff, completely bypassing any player effort, game mechanic, markets, supply and demand...

The idiocy is unbelievable even for CCP Evil or Very Mad

EDIT:
Making the spawned items reprocess to 1 trit or unreprocessable is not enough. It would stop the artificial mineral price caps/floors only. It still bypasses the legit markets and manufacturers (less demand).

Ciar Meara
Amarr
Virtus Vindice
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:24:00 - [416]
 

Edited by: Ciar Meara on 14/06/2011 14:28:17


Originally by: CCP Zinfandel

We are holding it back to go slower.


No you are not, you are holding to your original schedule as you allready stated earlier that was "late august"!

please enlighten me how not changing your release framework at all for this is "holding back"?

Posted - 14/06/2011 11:10:00 (PAGE 10):

Originally by: CCP Zinfandel

We aren't offering everything in the store on day one. We are rolling stuff in slowly. I had scheduled the Ishukone Watch Scorpion for late August.




Zavulon Sukkot
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:25:00 - [417]
 

Originally by: CCP Zinfandel


No, I think you might have missed a post. The plan is to put the ship into the EVE client for Incarna 1.0 but not put any in the game yet. In August, we will evaluate how things are going, how long until the store can support either BCPs or trade-ins, and then work with the CSM to pick a launch schedule for the ship.

We are holding it back to go slower.


So, why did CCP implement it as a direct trade in the first place? Are you just trying to make us tired of griping about MT so you can kill the game with fatigue? I'd think it would be crystal clear that implementations like this fly in the face of player sentiment, so why does CCP keep trying to push them like that?

Khaed Duhn
Minmatar
The Kairos Syndicate
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:26:00 - [418]
 

I am fully aware that I am a total non-entity on the forums but I would just like to say thanks for listening to peoples concerns, it doesn't mean I'm happy with how this will all play out in the long run but for the moment thank you.

And at least it looks like I can repress that memory of Uncle Jimmy again, ahhh it was like gargling an ocean of salty yoghurt.


Vile'er
Ungrateful Vile
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:26:00 - [419]
 

Edited by: Vile''er on 14/06/2011 14:28:31
CCP Zinfandel you clearly stated in the tournmaent subforum that the new scorpion would come purely from aur when it is released if this is incorrect simply ask for a news note or dev blog to quieten the masses.

vile rat you are saying that u wouldnt want them to skip production when you havent read the post we are all having kittens over.

you cant miss it the tournment sub forum is not as crazy spam as the general one.

this is the exact quote.

Right now our plan is to temporarily sell whole ships until this fall when we will switch to requiring a normal Scorpion as part of the price. BPCs would have worked too, if we could support that. The CSM felt that a short period of time selling the whole ship would not meaningfully hurt the EVE economy or Scorpion ship builders.

Iurnan Mileghere
Singularity Foundation
Posted - 2011.06.14 14:32:00 - [420]
 

Please count this as another voice against the current plan. Wait until the store is ready rather than start a bad precedent. IG goods (those that have mechanical usage) come from IG mechanics, not RL currency.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (29)

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