Assembly Hall

1) Not Sure
2) Cosmetic Only
3)
4) No
5) No
6) Yes
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No
11) No
12) Yes
13) No
14) Yes
15) Yes

1. No
2. None
3. PLEX, Aurum, The Nex Store
4. Not sure
5. Yes
6. Not sure
7. No
8. No
9. No
10. No
11. No
12. No
13. Yes
14. Not sure
15. Yes

dam you forums

1) Yes
2) Cosmetic Only, Those that give an Ingame Advantage
3)
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) No
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No
11) No
12) Yes
13) Yes
14) Not Sure
15) Yes


2) I'm not totally against items that give an ingame advantages, such as PLEX, buying and selling characters, or new items. (Like extra remaps, or training multiple alts on the same character.) You just have to be carefull about what you sell.
14) I'm not totally against a F2P model. It works in WoT. But I haven't seen any ideas yet that would work in Eve. No skilling on free characters would be a bad idea imo.

I've added your suggestion, but I was expecting you'd write nothing if you wanted to keep all of the options.



Nothing to do with how many sp someone has, the question is aimed at finding out if people would be interested in playing if they only had to pay when training sp. Ie. You could play for free, but you couldn't train skills without reedeming plex and or paying subscription. There are some interesting things that could happen with a system like this but a restriction like trial accounts (you are restricted to how many accounts you can run at once) would potentially negate some problems caused with a system like this aswell as making these accounts exempt from free aurum or reducing free aurum amounts compared to paid/ plexed accounts. However, this idea could help retain players and/or get some new players so it could be beneficial to the game. It would effectively allow some people to play for free.



Keep it up!

1) Not Sure
2) Cosmetic Only
3) Aurum
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) No
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No
11) Yes
12) Not Sure
13) Yes
14) Yes
15) Yes


1) and 4) Microtransactions already existed in EVE before Aurum and the Nex Store came along. A player who pays RL currency for PLEX, sells said PLEX for ISK, and then buys ships or equipment with that ISK has effectively completed a "microtransaction". The ISK would not have been available to the player if not for the payment of RL currency. Adding AUR to the mix is only one additional step. Whether or not this is good for EVE over the long-term remains to be seen.

2) and 5) If you want to split hairs, technically, anyone who buys a PLEX, sells it for ISK, and then buys ships or equipment with that ISK could be argued to have an ingame advantage. Who is to say whether they ever could have acquired the ship(s) or equipment if not for the sale of PLEX? Possibly they would have been limited to less expensive (and thus less effective) versions of that equipment, or none at all. Some players may not have the time/resources/desire/etc to obtain costly items through grunt work but suddenly find these items in reach via PLEX. So, this technically means transactions for "ingame advantage" are already allowed. However, I would like the Nex Store to be limited to Cosmetic Only.

14) I think this is a silly question. There is always something worth training in EVE, thus characters generally always have their queue active if the player is active. Thus, people would always be paying. What difference is made then?

1) Yes
2) Cosmetic Only
3) None of the above
4) Yes
5) No
6) No
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No
11) No
12) Yes
13) No
14) No
15) Yes

A clarification for question #5): PLEX does not give only one player an advantage, and that is why I've answered "No". PLEX gives:
- ISK to the player selling the PLEX
- game time to the player buying the plex
- ISK to many players that are making and/or selling in-game items on the market, since the seller of the PLEX needs the ISK to buy something from other players

A simple "5) Do Plex give players an ingame advantage?" is not good enough to get the relevant results.

1) No
2) None
3) Aurum
4) No
5) No
6) No
7) Yes
8) No
9) No
10) No
11) No
12) Not sure
13) No
14) Not sure
15) No