Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: Jade Constantine on 28 Jun 2011, 06:57
-
Eve Online General Discussion Thread (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1541703)
This can be considered an addendum to my initial post on the subject (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1534552&page=41#1204)
from the EveNews24 "greed is good?" leak thread.
Having had a few days to think about all this and now with anticipation of the upcoming CSM/CCP summit at the end of the week I’d like to expand on my earlier points.
1. End Mandatory Captains Quarters. This is the no-brainer in the equation really. The CSM need to get a commitment from CCP to restore the old hanger environment/functionality and add “disembark to CQ” as an icon choice.
If it takes a month of programming it’s more than worth it. This will immediately deal with the performance/heat issues by allowing Eve players to skip CQ’s until the option is properly optimized while letting new-users (who are likely on just one client) experience the environment. By all means have the NPE start in CQ.
This needs to happen and I’d like an additional undertaking from CCP that they will not ignore SISI feedback on an issue like this in the future.
2. Address NeX/Cash shop in Eve. I like many other players have an instinctive reaction against this thing. My first impulse is to demand “not in my eve” and see it as an unsightly and disgustingly corrupt intrusion into the Eve sandbox. I’m not kidding but in its present form even the Icon in the CQ makes me angry! Nor do I like NeX for “vanity items only” since it’s still doing something to the Eve market that I am not comfortable with. Newer players ask “what is wrong with vanity sales only?” And it’s time to provide a solid answer:
What Vanity sales via Nex does is short-circuit player industry in Eve. The goods on offer are not made by players, they don’t take input from in-game resources, they don’t need blueprints, and they don’t (in short) add anything to the economic simulation. Now that might already sound alarmist but it goes further:
I look at the NeX shop and I fear this is where the grand majority of Incarna “content” will be delivered. I was one of those players initially very sceptical of Incarna when it was announced, but over the last year or so my interest was teased by the notion of player goods; new market categories, illegal venders, etc etc, and I could see this expansion being decent after all. But not if all content is simply delivered by NeX with no meaningful interaction with the player market.
So let’s change that.
Basically I’d like to see all NeX products supplied as Blueprint originals/copies at various levels that require various player-gathered resources to manufacture finished items from. Then you certainly charge 5billion isk / 36,000 aurum for a Monocle blueprint and have input materials set around X figure to allow a new generation of entrepreneurs to build and market monocles to the rich fashion-victims of New Eden without ruining the game.
Deliver the rest of the vanity/expensive clothing/ship decals content of Incarna in the same way and I really don’t have a problem. For bonus points work on allowing customization (research) of the Vanity blueprints to alter the colour of the clothing and you’ve probably got a winner. Ship-decals, corp-alliance logos, all of that stuff – let people buy blueprints and make their own in-game business of providing this service. Widen the game don’t spoil it!
3. But NeX items cannot be the whole of Incarna content.
I think CCP now need to give the community a solid guarantee that for every element of NeX delivered content, there must be X (where X is a multiple) non NeX items of content that are delivered in the traditional way.
Quick example would be the basic clothing for the Avatars – at the moment the “free” clothing options are too limited, uninteresting and not racially or culturally distinctive. CCP should make a commitment to resolve this by increasing the default options as well as introducing NeX store options. (An easy fix right now would be to make all current clothing choices available for free to all characters which would increase the variety at least) but it does need iterating on and simply offering NeX customization to make up for poor default choice of clothing will not cut it.
So I’d like to see this commitment in writing. We pay our subscriptions for these “free content expansions” and its long been a selling point of Eve Online – ensure there is a good balance of free content available and everyone is happy.
4. Now on the really complex issue. MT for gameplay advantage.
It’s easy to get up on the chair and shout “no pay to win in Eve”. “No gameplay changing microtransactions!” But the elephant in the room is DUST 514. This is a MT-based game that is designed from the ground up to have influence on aspects of Eve most notably sovereignty warfare. The sad truth is that game-changing microtransactions ARE coming to Eve as long as Dust 514 finishes development and gets rolled out. And as long as alliance sovereignty fights can be influenced by whose credit card than buy the best tanks for their Dust mercs then the game has changed and changed forever.
So that’s right we’re screwed then?
Well, maybe, After all, can’t you influence sovereignty warfare right now by purchasing a few thousand plex and buying your alliance-mates supercarriers? I think most of us can admit this is the case. But we understand the mechanic and there are limitations – character training, pilot skill, alliance morale, yada yada, money is a factor but it’s not the whole story.
And lacking the story is what makes prospective Eve-impacting MT schemes so horribly stomach-churning. I think CCP now need to be totally honest with the player base about how the Dust 514 MT model will impact Eve Online and increase likely playing costs to parts of our community. Part of me suspects this is why CCP have not provided the definitive “no gamplay advantage MT” guarantee we asked for. They know that Dust 514 will break this promise and they are hedging their bets unwilling to give us the bad news yet while still locked into Dust development.
So on this point I think the only good outcome is full disclosure of the proposed MT system and costs for Dust so we can avoid the $60 monocle fiasco. If at this point CCP came back with a promise that playing DUST 514 competitively would be about the price of World of Tanks and that a top-flight uber spacetank of doom would cost about the same as tier 8 Lowe (around 2 medium domino’s pizzas) then I think we could relax for six months in the knowledge that at least our future space-empires wouldn’t take a second mortgage to defend in merc fees.
Summary in brief - What I’d like to see the CSM seek from CCP in Iceland:
1. Commitment to restore the pre-incarna hanger view as an absolute development priority.
2. Serious consideration given to vanity-items (NeX) being produced as blueprints with player input required for manufacturing finished product.
3. Commitment to a healthy ratio of traditionally-delivered content items over NeX-delivered content items.
4. Get the truth about Dust 514 and come back with a provisional estimation of cost to play. We need to know how this is going to impact our ability to afford and enjoy the game of Eve Online.
I'll be linking this thread to some of my favourite CSMS (*waves at trebor, seleene, meissa, and now white tree*)
And if the coming meeting gets a decent response on these issues I for one would be quite happy with the outcome.
But I would remind CCP this is a serious time for the game all things considered. We are coming to the end of the "18 months" of no real eve-centric development that we were asked to give the developers on trust that things would improve.
Now things need to improve in earnest and new fashions and techniques like MT financial model cannot replace the neccessity for pure good quality content delivered through the subscription model to refine and enhance the gameworld of Eve Online.
This community is now very uncertain about both the direction of the game, and indeed the commitment of CCP to keep improving and adding genuinely free content. Communication needs to improve radically and that doesn't mean CCP doing all the talking and us doing all the listening.
CCP need to start listening to its community and taking feedback seriously to avoid the potential disasters of this summer.
-
I agree with all of that, and add the following points I'd like to see:
- Possibility that Dust MT is done blueprint style, not vending machine style
- A possible commitment by CCP to step back from MT in eve all together once Dust and WoD are turning a profit.
- Commitment by CCP to be upfront and open with its playerbase and customers about its problems instead of going behind our backs (CCP financial situation)
- Commitment by CCP to listen to us and our problems right to start with, before we turn into an angry mob and set fire to the forums and the Jita monument. Lines of communication need to be wide open.
- The possibility of selling shares in CCP to the players if they really need cash.
- Just in general be more open about everything, instead of locked up in their Icelandic Doom Fortress.
In a strange way, the eve players have a sort of bargain with CCP, something strange that goes past "we pay for the game, letting CCP keep it running and iterate on it." If CCP had come out right at the start, before MT was even considered, and said, "Shit guys, we've wracked up too high of an investment cost for Dust and WoD, we fucked up bigtime. Please help us fix it so we can keep making your spaceships."
If they'd just come out and said that, and added a donate button, or temporarily raised the subscription fee, a lot of people would have gone along with it, gladly. A lot of us treat eve as a lifestyle, and if CCP was really in trouble, would gladly have paid more to help keep them going, so they don't get bought out by some bigshit publishing house like EA or SOE. Maybe toss in a digital shirt or something (http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/EVE_Online_Incarna_Monocle_WiP.jpg) when someone donates X amount.
But no, they kept their financial situation under wraps best they could, told us everything was great, and then tried to shove overpriced vanity items down our throats.
CCP needs to realize that we aren't just a cash cow or golden goose or whatever monetary animal analogy they want to use. We're more then that we love eve. I at least, treat the game like as much of a lifestyle as a game. There's a deep sense of passion for the game that goes way beyond most things out there in the industry.
If CCP stopped treating us like various money spewing farm animals, and treated us like actual people, like partners, who are willingly contributing our money towards the operating of this amazing sandbox, things would be a lot better. Because the truth is, we're not like the community of most MMOs, we've been around a whole lot longer, we're generally more mature, and we've invested as much love and passion into eve as CCP has.
In short: If CCP were open, and upfront, and treated their playerbase with the same respect that they treat their investors, then many many more of us would be willing to be those investors.
-
Replied in the EVE-O thread. Nikita, you should do the same.
-
Replied in the EVE-O thread. Nikita, you should do the same.
have done so.
-
If you introduce blueprints for sale with Aurum the end result is a market where the products can be bought for marginally more than what they cost to produce. At that point it becomes a waste of time to buy any additional blueprints once the market is saturated and the product (blueprint) becomes redundant. The products then retain no exclusivity, which is the objective of Aurum.
Solutions such as raising the price of the blueprint would keep prices high only initially. Solutions such as making the costs of production prohibitively high / products very rare will also keep prices high but the supply will be very low and thus CCP will not make much $$$.
My view is that it is fine for CCP to enable aurum purchases for vanity items, so long as they can be resold for isk. If they provide an ingame advantage, people will buy them and resell them for isk instead of PLEX. This can create very interesting opportunities for people who dabble in the market for high end goods.
I don't believe the arguments that 'If NeX items are superior to existing items they will ruin EvE'. You don't see every pilot who can afford plex for isk flying deadspace fitted T3 ships, do you? Many people who could afford to do so do not. Why? Because they don't want to risk it, and that helps maintain the value of the products in question.
Why shouldn't people without time but with money not be able to invest and enjoy EvE like those with plenty of time and less money?
There is that subset of the EvE population who were in the game early, and got their hands on T2 BPOs. They may have used other forms of increasing their advantages - training up research alts (i.e. investing more $$$). They can now still make isk with competitiveness like none who came after them, unless their BPOs are obtained by others on the rare occasion that they are sold. Yet those who argue for a level playing field ignore this and didn't complain about it . If we wanted to be fair, T2 BPOs should be obtainable ingame or abolished from the game.
If you are so opposed to people using $$$ to get an advantage, start with alts and PLEX.
NeX is not different, because it can stimulate the market the same way PLEX does. Items obtained in that manner can have interesting effects on the market (resellers and distributors may stand to make a profit). Sure, supply-side is controlled by $$$ - they can therefore compete with PLEX for a way for players to obtain isk, but with the added benefit of introducing new items to the ingame market.
-
BPO or BPC ?
-
The issue with that Scagga is that with Plex purchases, the items being bought still have to be made by players. Those that do buy faction fitted tengus using plex, don't get those tengus out of thin air. they have to be produced by player actions. This is where Aurum breaks the system, by simply adding items flat out to the world, with no production cost, and no input, it creates a positive feedback loop that depreciates the value of everything else over time and leads to a market collapse.
Lets use a simple example: I have a Machariel. A Machariel costs roguhly 900 million isk currently. If I could buy a machariel, or a ship that performed the same role, as well as it does, for Aurum, then those would be bought instead of Machariels, until they came down in price to be equal to machariels, and then would continue to fall in price as more of them were introduced to the world without any ingame investment, dragging the price of Machariels through the floor, people stop running missions for the angels because of this, because its not cost effective, and that gameplay element just dies, that market just dies.
-
The issue with that Scagga is that with Plex purchases, the items being bought still have to be made by players. Those that do buy faction fitted tengus using plex, don't get those tengus out of thin air. they have to be produced by player actions. This is where Aurum breaks the system, by simply adding items flat out to the world, with no production cost, and no input, it creates a positive feedback loop that depreciates the value of everything else over time and leads to a market collapse.
Let me break this down.
You accept PLEX because another player has made the isk, but it doesn't change the fact that someone is effectively buying an ingame advantage. Logic from that statement dictates that the principle of buying an ingame advantage is not wrong.
I see 'because there is player work involved, it is valid', as something based on a sentimental principle rather than a factual utilitarian view. Realistically, I do not think that Aurum will break the EvE market, even if there was the desire to spend the stupendous amount of $$$ needed to get a measurable advantage. I'll elaborate below.
Lets use a simple example: I have a Machariel. A Machariel costs roguhly 900 million isk currently. If I could buy a machariel, or a ship that performed the same role, as well as it does, for Aurum, then those would be bought instead of Machariels, until they came down in price to be equal to machariels, and then would continue to fall in price as more of them were introduced to the world without any ingame investment, dragging the price of Machariels through the floor, people stop running missions for the angels because of this, because its not cost effective, and that gameplay element just dies, that market just dies.
I don't agree with this example. Let's look at history:
- The introduction of the machariel did not destroy the tempest. Both can make great projectile platforms, but the machariel is better. People still use Tempests because Machariels are too expensive to use en masse.
- The introduction of the Navy issue Raven did not destroy the Raven. People still use Ravens because Navy issue ravens are too expensive to use en masse.
- The introduction of the transport did not destroy the hauler. People still use haulers because transports are too expensive to use en masse.
All of these products are better than their predecessors at the same role. However, they cost more. Therefore the user risks more, which affects demand. The prices of the predecessors are stable and related to their production costs and prevailing supply.
So, if an Aurum-obtainable ship is introduced at a price that is much higher than that of a Machariel, nobody in their right mind would resell it for isk for less than they could get by buying and reselling PLEX. In that way, one can pin the price of a unique aurum at a price that very few can afford.
The demand for ships will always increase. The amount of isk in the system is increasing, and the number of players who can fly better ships has always been increasing.
Much like demand for a faction item is not destroyed by the existence of deadspace items, the demand for a machariel is not destroyed by the introduction of something better (and much more expensive) than it.
People already have almost unassailable ingame advantages (T2 BPOs, certain moons they can defend with all their friends and 10s of millions of SPs...).
-
I might not actually mind if there was a ship available for aurum that was better than what we have available (actually, that's a lie, I would mind, but not because of the damage it would do to the market).
The risk to the market is when you can buy something for aurum that is equal (or very nearly equal) to something else on the market. For example, let's say I can buy something common, like Ravens, in NEX. At this point, people will always be checking the value of something in aurum against its value in isk and the price of plex. As a result, the isk price for a normal raven becomes tied to the value of a plex. If the price of Plex ever crashes, for reasons competely unrelated to ship demand and mineral costs, the price of anything that can be bought with plex drops with it. In short, the price of anything produced normally but also available in NEX now has a ceiling placed on its value by the price of a plex.
The effect on the market is lessened if you put stuff in NEX that is actually better than whats otherwise available, as you described earlier. However, you still have the fact that if the price of PLEX crashes for some reason, it will drive down the value of everything similar - if your expensive, superior ship becomes cheaper, it drives down demand for the ordinary ship. The reason deadspace didn't kill faction is because of very limited supply, but there's nothing to ensure limited supply with NEX - all there is is prohibitively high cost, which is dependent on the price of a plex. Currently plexes sit around 400 mil, but what happens if they drop to earlier levels, around 250-300 mil? This makes NEX gear much more affordable, pushing down the price of inferior gear, boosting the supply, dropping the price, and applying downward pressure to the price of inferior ships/mods/ammo - and not because anything else change, just because the price of Plex fluctuated.
The more non-vanity stuff you put in NEX, the more the market becomes tied to the value of a plex. I personally consider this a very bad thing.
-
I think the more important point with regards to AURUM based ships (or anything game effecting) isn't that it will utterly destroy the demand for other ships, but it radically changes the playing field for a couple reasons. I'll focus on comparing them to faction ships/gear as they provide the most applicable comparison. Also I'm going on the assumption that AURUM ships are superior to other options, because why would you bother with AURUM if these weren't better ships?
There is a huge difference in the supply mechanics between the potential AURUM ships and existing faction ships. Faction ships have supply limitations, both through time and ISK costs, which influences both their value and the perceived risk of flying one. AURUM based ships would not have any supply side limitations, if players have the money they can acquire the ship, period (and presumably get it delivered anywhere too). Part of the reason you don't see Machariel's used en masse is the lack of available ships (just look at tourney created shortages); AURUM ships would not have this problem at all. So not only would you have better ships via AURUM purchase but you wouldn't have to deal with any of the disadvantages inherent in acquiring scarce goods from an open market. I feel this would put non-MT players at a competitive disadvantage, especially if the ISK value of the AURUM ships would be prohibitively high, because they would have to either expend more time to get more ISK or opt to pay cash to acquire them.
At least with PLEX people are only able to purchase the same goods as everyone else and have to deal with issues of price fluctuations and scarcity like every other player does.
I should note that I'm keeping this simplified as there are too many 'what-ifs' involved, both in terms of player willingness/ability to purchase AURUM items and the infinitely complex nature of EVE warfare.
As far as people having T2 BPOs or mountains of moon-goo: those are advantages conferred through in-game actions. The T2 BPO owners didn't pay $$ to acquire them and the guys with moons have to defend their assets so I cannot see a fair comparison there. T2 BPOs and moon-goo are balance issues.
Edit: And because I was only replying to Scagga there I'll add that I agree with the ideas proposed in the OP.
-
You accept PLEX because another player has made the isk, but it doesn't change the fact that someone is effectively buying an ingame advantage. Logic from that statement dictates that the principle of buying an ingame advantage is not wrong.
An action can be overall 'not wrong' if the sum of its components is 'not wrong', even if some of those are considered 'wrong'. I find pain disagreeable, but accept vaccinations to avoid disease. Similarly for PLEX, one who eschews the purchase of ingame advantages can accept it if it the benefits, which in the case of PLEX are primarily the reduction of illicit RMT and the increased subscriber base, outweigh the costs.
I see 'because there is player work involved, it is valid', as something based on a sentimental principle rather than a factual utilitarian view. Realistically, I do not think that Aurum will break the EvE market, even if there was the desire to spend the stupendous amount of $$$ needed to get a measurable advantage. I'll elaborate below.
If you want to talk utility, why are you discounting the utility gained by those players who enjoy producing goods?
-
I might not actually mind if there was a ship available for aurum that was better than what we have available (actually, that's a lie, I would mind, but not because of the damage it would do to the market).
The risk to the market is when you can buy something for aurum that is equal (or very nearly equal) to something else on the market. For example, let's say I can buy something common, like Ravens, in NEX. At this point, people will always be checking the value of something in aurum against its value in isk and the price of plex. As a result, the isk price for a normal raven becomes tied to the value of a plex. If the price of Plex ever crashes, for reasons competely unrelated to ship demand and mineral costs, the price of anything that can be bought with plex drops with it. In short, the price of anything produced normally but also available in NEX now has a ceiling placed on its value by the price of a plex.
The effect on the market is lessened if you put stuff in NEX that is actually better than whats otherwise available, as you described earlier. However, you still have the fact that if the price of PLEX crashes for some reason, it will drive down the value of everything similar - if your expensive, superior ship becomes cheaper, it drives down demand for the ordinary ship. The reason deadspace didn't kill faction is because of very limited supply, but there's nothing to ensure limited supply with NEX - all there is is prohibitively high cost, which is dependent on the price of a plex. Currently plexes sit around 400 mil, but what happens if they drop to earlier levels, around 250-300 mil? This makes NEX gear much more affordable, pushing down the price of inferior gear, boosting the supply, dropping the price, and applying downward pressure to the price of inferior ships/mods/ammo - and not because anything else change, just because the price of Plex fluctuated.
The more non-vanity stuff you put in NEX, the more the market becomes tied to the value of a plex. I personally consider this a very bad thing.
NeX (Aurum) exchange rates to PLEX are to be set by CCP. They can be pegged at an appropriate exchange rate subject to review.
PLEX $$$ prices can be pegged to Aurum $$$ prices. Should the price of PLEX fall, usage will increase and this may help recovery of the price. If the problem is protracted CCP can revise the exchange rate, of course.
if your expensive, superior ship becomes cheaper, it drives down demand for the ordinary ship
Let's be fair here. Demand will always be increasing. Even with an increase in usage of 'superior aurum ships', the fraction of the market they will represent will be small and it will be a long time before people can afford to buy them in fleetworths of quantity.
-
An action can be overall 'not wrong' if the sum of its components is 'not wrong', even if some of those are considered 'wrong'. I find pain disagreeable, but accept vaccinations to avoid disease. Similarly for PLEX, one who eschews the purchase of ingame advantages can accept it if it the benefits, which in the case of PLEX are primarily the reduction of illicit RMT and the increased subscriber base, outweigh the costs.
Very good, very good. So, you wouldn't necessarily oppose Aurum (on the basis that it allows people to buy an advantage/bypass economies etc.) if the benefits balanced it?
I for one do not see the harm it can cause as significant, compared to the increased potential enjoyment of the game. All that can be purchased with Aurum can be purchased with isk via plex, so I do not see it as excluding people with smaller rl wallets (they just have to 'earn it' ingame instead of OOG).
I think it will attract more people to the game, and newer players will be able to get a taste of the finer things without having to get their knees dirty servicing some ingame hegemon. Think of others instead of yourselves.
If you want to talk utility, why are you discounting the utility gained by those players who enjoy producing goods?
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
Yeah, screw that pesky minority that manufactures stuff. </sarcasm>
Granted, I may be taking that statement a bit out of context, but if you feel that way why not just cut out player production all together and go back to everything being seeded by NPCs?
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
Yeah, screw that pesky minority that manufactures stuff. </sarcasm>
Granted, I may be taking that statement a bit out of context, but if you feel that way why not just cut out player production all together and go back to everything being seeded by NPCs?
Why not get rid of automatic skill training and make people grind for skillpoints?
Enough hypocrisy.
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
This really. Well said.
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
I'm not seeing the reason why the producers should be cut out or why anyone would be happy they were. One of the directions EVE has been heading over the course of its development is toward everything being player created - why do the people flying a ship care where it came from? Does cutting out the producers benefit them somehow?
I guess I'm missing the point of your statement, because it seems like a false dichotomy - why can't we just put the ship/mod/etc into the game and let players who want to build it and players who want to fly it? What's the benefit of cutting out the producers?
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
I'm not seeing the reason why the producers should be cut out or why anyone would be happy they were. One of the directions EVE has been heading over the course of its development is toward everything being player created - why do the people flying a ship care where it came from? Does cutting out the producers benefit them somehow?
I guess I'm missing the point of your statement, because it seems like a false dichotomy - why can't we just put the ship/mod/etc into the game and let players who want to build it and players who want to fly it? What's the benefit of cutting out the producers?
I'm not seeing the reason for this either I must admit. I think its a slightly outfield comment that flies in the face of current community response (and certainly in the face of my taste for the game) hence the opening post.
-
BPO or BPC ?
My preference would be bpo and have some additional customization options in research (colours/fabrics maybe)
-
An action can be overall 'not wrong' if the sum of its components is 'not wrong', even if some of those are considered 'wrong'. I find pain disagreeable, but accept vaccinations to avoid disease. Similarly for PLEX, one who eschews the purchase of ingame advantages can accept it if it the benefits, which in the case of PLEX are primarily the reduction of illicit RMT and the increased subscriber base, outweigh the costs.
Very good, very good. So, you wouldn't necessarily oppose Aurum (on the basis that it allows people to buy an advantage/bypass economies etc.) if the benefits balanced it?
I for one do not see the harm it can cause as significant, compared to the increased potential enjoyment of the game. All that can be purchased with Aurum can be purchased with isk via plex, so I do not see it as excluding people with smaller rl wallets (they just have to 'earn it' ingame instead of OOG).
I think it will attract more people to the game, and newer players will be able to get a taste of the finer things without having to get their knees dirty servicing some ingame hegemon. Think of others instead of yourselves.
If you want to talk utility, why are you discounting the utility gained by those players who enjoy producing goods?
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
Oh, I've never been terribly opposed to MT or RMT. I just enjoy argumentation.
That said, why do you think this is zero sum? Having players produce goods creates enjoyment for both producers and consumers. (And indirectly middlemen/traders.) If it comes straight from CCP only the latter benefit.
-
I'm not seeing the reason for this either I must admit. I think its a slightly outfield comment that flies in the face of current community response (and certainly in the face of my taste for the game) hence the opening post.
You dont want us to believe that you are reading his post without knowing that it was his reply to a previous post yes? No, a forum expert like you my love wouldnt do that now, would you?
He is answering another post and in that context it does fit very well. No one is saying x needs to be destroyed for Y to prevail.
Besides the words " I predict " are quite relevant on his statement too, just a note incase you have missed it somewhere.
And no we dont need vaninty items to become bpcs, or bpos. Eve Universe is big enough to both markets and both playstyles without restriction.
xxx
-
Besides the words " I predict " are quite relevant on his statement too, just a note incase you have missed it somewhere.
Then let me be clear. I predict on this occassion he would be proven wrong.
And no we dont need vaninty items to become bpcs, or bpos. Eve Universe is big enough to both markets and both playstyles without restriction.
Obviously we will again agree to disagree on this point. But since you made your view quite clear on MT vanity items in your other thread I'm not really sure we needed it re-stating in this one. For the record I do not believe this is a case where "both" markets/playstyles can happily coexist hence my suggestions in the op post.
-
I predict that the number of people who would enjoy the goods would greatly exceed the number of players who would enjoy producing the goods. I think that more people would be happy with producers being cut out than producers unhappy that they had been cut out.
I'm not seeing the reason why the producers should be cut out or why anyone would be happy they were. One of the directions EVE has been heading over the course of its development is toward everything being player created - why do the people flying a ship care where it came from? Does cutting out the producers benefit them somehow?
I guess I'm missing the point of your statement, because it seems like a false dichotomy - why can't we just put the ship/mod/etc into the game and let players who want to build it and players who want to fly it? What's the benefit of cutting out the producers?
I gave reasons for why releasing BPCs/BPOs was not a good idea. I refer you to this part of one of my earlier posts in this thread:
If you introduce blueprints for sale with Aurum the end result is a market where the products can be bought for marginally more than what they cost to produce. At that point it becomes a waste of time to buy any additional blueprints once the market is saturated and the product (blueprint) becomes redundant. The products then retain no exclusivity, which is the objective of Aurum.
Solutions such as raising the price of the blueprint would keep prices high only initially. Solutions such as making the costs of production prohibitively high / products very rare will also keep prices high but the supply will be very low and thus CCP will not make much $$$.
My view is that it is fine for CCP to enable aurum purchases for vanity items, so long as they can be resold for isk. If they provide an ingame advantage, people will buy them and resell them for isk instead of PLEX. This can create very interesting opportunities for people who dabble in the market for high end goods.
If we aren't against the idea of Aurum in principle then you can see how short-sighted it is for CCP to introduce BPOs, or even BPCs. It will lead to fewer sales.
In terms of benefits to the community, the reality is that in the long term it will only be the professional producers who will stand to benefit significantly if this is the route that is taken. The convenience and added experience of buying items from a special store, that any wealthy member of society can purchase from is part of the allure.
Traders and middlemen are unaffected, as they can profit from either route. There will be people who will buy items for aurum and resell for isk. Traders can buy and sell from what supply exists, and use their ancillary skills to befriend mass supplyers, or gain contracts with major organisations and become a point of contact. The added control that traders can have over supply will add to their power.
There is damage to consider for the option you suggest. If you take a route that engenders mass supply (BP route) you will magnify the effects that these products will have on demand for other products - if that was of any concern to you.
-
Oh, I've never been terribly opposed to MT or RMT. I just enjoy argumentation.
That said, why do you think this is zero sum? Having players produce goods creates enjoyment for both producers and consumers. (And indirectly middlemen/traders.) If it comes straight from CCP only the latter benefit.
Having players produce goods will entertain people who enjoy producing (collect stuff, press button, wait ??? product). We can't produce most faction items, but people don't have a problem with them spawning randomly. While that's deemed ok here because player 'effort' is involved, it isn't different in practice for the average joe if someone purposefully 'spawns' it from a shop. Supply is controlled by the fact that the price is prohibitive (analogous to the effort involved in randomly 'spawning' other items).
It's clear that the fact that someone can't produce an item is a setting everyone has coped with quite well so far. There was no widespread gamebreaking upset that POS fuel couldn't be manufactured, was there?
I have explained that middlemen and traders will possibly have reason to enjoy the option I suggest more. I for one have been a very active trader in the past and can see opportunity in it.
The product is geared towards consumers - i.e. buying from CCP and increase their $$$ sales. Benefiting producers with this by introducing BPCs/BPOs is not helpful towards the final goal as it results in fewer transactions.
-
I'm not seeing the reason for this either I must admit. I think its a slightly outfield comment that flies in the face of current community response (and certainly in the face of my taste for the game) hence the opening post.
You're right, it is quite different from the bulk of documented community response.
On observation, the majority of responses are laden with emotions. In most cases I have seen, people are responding with how they feel about an issue, rather than demonstrating thinking about balancing what the actual pros and cons are. Also, I can't really say that the response represents the majority of the EvE community, only the portion that post on the forums. As such, it is necessary to also consider an assessment of what the community 'does'.
Naturally one must not get lost in 'facts', CCP stands to lose PR standing if it doesn't placate the angry mobs, who could maliciously detract their contacts from the game. This however has nothing to do with whether the majority of EvE players like or dislike incarna.
The reality as I see it is that most people are angry that someone with RL $$$ could hypothetically get an advantage over them with the incarna features (notwithstanding the possibility of doing this with PLEX as the situation stands). Those with plenty of ingame isk should know that they can purchase the items from resellers or via PLEX, but may be angry because of the more direct route being their likely weakness - RL $$$.
The power shifts from near absolute control of those who invest their time in the game to more visibly share it with those who invest their money into the game. We already know that those who purchase multiple accounts get advantages in the game - able to train more than one character at once for no significant added effort, dual or triple boxing, etc. The majority accept this because they are in cahoots with it. When a feature using the same principle is introduced that they see as a bourgeois purchase (in practice reluctant to happily separate themselves from added $$$ from), it suddenly becomes legitimate to become indignant, in spite of all the other similar expenditures they as a group make...
-
This entire debate is plagued with oversimplifications. It's a problem few people notice and even fewer want to care about. Talking in grand, evocative, catch-all phrases captures the imagination and pulls the heartstrings much better than trudging through complexity and having boring discussions about words and their definitions.
Pay to win, for example. It's a vague concept, and made even moreso by the perpetual nature of a single-shard sandbox where the concept of "winning" has so many different shapes and sizes. Watch two alliances post-battle debating on CAOD and you'll start to get some picture of how "winning in EVE" means about twenty different things. Honestly, I'm kinda of amazed that so many EVE players are wilfully ignoring how pay2win exists right now, according to the definitions that they themselves provided. But those definitions change from post to post.
Can anyone, in all honesty, provide a definition of "pay to win" that has consensus amongst EVE players? I doubt it's possible. What one player sees as just an advantage, another sees as gamebreakingly overpowered. Perspectives on this issue are wildly divergent. It should be little surprise then, that CCP is conspicuously hesitant to make blanket statements, just as it should be telling that when they do ("no gold ammo") hundreds of people seek clarification and read twelve different meanings into it.
Another related issue is that paying for advantage doesn't guarantee winning. A while back, a Russian aluminum tycoon spent tens of thousands of USD in PLEX and funded an alliance of hundreds of people and their ships. This guy tried to pay to win, but ultimately discovered that it takes more than cash to make a successful, space-holding alliance.
This reality is often ignored as well when people talk about how buying in-game advantage will necessarily and inevitably destroy the game. It already exists. Is EVE broken as a result? Some might say yes. At least they're consistent. Others might say no, and compare it to a noob flying a paid-for-by-plex Raven and losing it stupidly.
People can buy their way into anything right now, from new ships to entire alliances, and most inevitably discover that in EVE, you can't pay to win, even if you put thousands and thousands of dollars on the table.
So I guess my point is that, ultimately, people are concerned that a genuine, unarguable, pay2win mechanic is going to be introduced, and one that everyone can agree will be overpowered and gamebreaking.
So I guess, in that russian tycoon example, it's something comparable to buying sov over a system, that cannot be taken back. Some kind of infallible win mechanic.
I think if you read between the lines, CCP is trying (and failing spectacularly) to communicate the idea that a mechanic of that particular kind will never surface, but something similar to what's already out there very well could. Its a fine line to tread and they're not doing very well at it so far.
It's a much subtler distinction, and one that will probably remain forever distorted so long as CCP continue to mismanage communication, and mob thinking is the filter through which everyone sees the debate.
-
Having players produce goods will entertain people who enjoy producing (collect stuff, press button, wait ??? product). We can't produce most faction items, but people don't have a problem with them spawning randomly. While that's deemed ok here because player 'effort' is involved, it isn't different in practice for the average joe if someone purposefully 'spawns' it from a shop. Supply is controlled by the fact that the price is prohibitive (analogous to the effort involved in randomly 'spawning' other items).
It's clear that the fact that someone can't produce an item is a setting everyone has coped with quite well so far. There was no widespread gamebreaking upset that POS fuel couldn't be manufactured, was there?
The product is geared towards consumers - i.e. buying from CCP and increase their $$$ sales. Benefiting producers with this by introducing BPCs/BPOs is not helpful towards the final goal as it results in fewer transactions.
Not if they're single-run. And while I agree that most varieties of non-player item creation do not 'break' the game, you can't tell me that player creation makes the game worse.
-
Having players produce goods will entertain people who enjoy producing (collect stuff, press button, wait ??? product). We can't produce most faction items, but people don't have a problem with them spawning randomly. While that's deemed ok here because player 'effort' is involved, it isn't different in practice for the average joe if someone purposefully 'spawns' it from a shop. Supply is controlled by the fact that the price is prohibitive (analogous to the effort involved in randomly 'spawning' other items).
It's clear that the fact that someone can't produce an item is a setting everyone has coped with quite well so far. There was no widespread gamebreaking upset that POS fuel couldn't be manufactured, was there?
The product is geared towards consumers - i.e. buying from CCP and increase their $$$ sales. Benefiting producers with this by introducing BPCs/BPOs is not helpful towards the final goal as it results in fewer transactions.
Not if they're single-run. And while I agree that most varieties of non-player item creation do not 'break' the game, you can't tell me that player creation makes the game worse.
It still can result in fewer transactions because the allure of buying it from the shop is lost. The marketting ability of the product is lost, it becomes common like any other item. It becomes more difficult for the consumer to obtain and may well not be profitable to produce.
I haven't said that the player creation makes the game worse in any part of any of my posts. I have indicated that it is suboptimal compared to the alternative.
-
I am not in favor of having BPOs in the NeX; that would quickly saturate the market and I DO buy CCPs idea about NeX items being (somewhat) exclusive items.
What I would like is for NeX items to require in game items along with AUR to purchase so there would be a market for said items.
-
It still can result in fewer transactions because the allure of buying it from the shop is lost. The marketting ability of the product is lost, it becomes common like any other item. It becomes more difficult for the consumer to obtain and may well not be profitable to produce.
I haven't said that the player creation makes the game worse in any part of any of my posts. I have indicated that it is suboptimal compared to the alternative.
I have a hard time believing that MTing things from CCP has much intrinsic allure. As to difficulty, for one thing I'm not advocating a POS reaction chain to make a skirt here. You don't need to spend five months training an alt to get a single manufacturing slot. Difficulty increase seems fairly marginal.
Also, since I was under the impression that we were discussing the welfare of the game, or at least the welfare/utility it generates for its players, so you'll have to clarify for me: For what purpose is it suboptimal? Merely CCP's profits? Even if I accept your arguments in that regard as sound and convincing, it's not a reason for me, a non-member of CCP, to prefer it. I might accept the way CCP chooses to do it, understanding their profit motive. But it's not a motive I share. I prefer to maximize my enjoyment of the game.
All that said, I'm just as much in favor of an item trade-in scheme as outlined by Myyona. It would have nearly the same practical effects.
-
What would be awesome is if CCP scraps or changes the whole NeX, and anyone who bought anything from it receives a ingame bonus from that item, with the monocle giving the biggest bonus.
-
1. Remove character creator art-asset racelocks. All clothes and hairstyles for everyone!
2. If they're keeping the NeX, make NeX items die with your pod. Mostly for purposes of lulz at the expense of all the people who bought them just to lord them over everyone else.
3. More clothing and hairstyles, including culturally specific clothing (Intaki robes! Intaki robes! Intaki robes!).
4. Optional CQ.
5. Remodel the Dominix. Completely. Just... eradicate that ugly, lumpy monstrosity and give us something like this (http://images.wikia.com/sinsofasolarempire/images/a/ae/Halcyon-Carrier.jpg) instead.
6. Fix Factional Warfare. I swear to God, CCP, I'd work for free if you'd hire me specifically to fix FW. I mean that quite literally.
7. More spaceships.
-
Stay on point tbh. Give people the option to turn off CQ and not stare at a door, and commit to never ever putting p2w items in the game. Lowering the prices in the NeX store to something realistic might help them sell shit from there (hell, I'd buy some odds and ends if they didn't cost me more than a month's sub for all of my accounts), but end of the day I don't give a shit and didn't cancel subs over that.
-
Double post, but just saw Jade's thread. +1
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1541703
Hits the nail on the head.