Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Revan Neferis]

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.

[Victoria Stecker]

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?

[Jade Constantine]

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.

[Jade Constantine]

BPO or BPC ?

My preference would be bpo and have some additional customization options in research (colours/fabrics maybe)

[Z.Sinraali]

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.

[Revan Neferis]

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

[Jade Constantine]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[scagga]

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...

[Orestes]

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.

[Z.Sinraali]

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.

[scagga]

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.

[Myyona]

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.

[Z.Sinraali]

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.