These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should eve be more 'Pay to Win?'

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Salvos Rhoska
#121 - 2014-04-07 16:17:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ramona McCandless wrote:
So you are saying you dont mind then if, to stay "competitive" you had to spend, $20, $50 or $100 per month because you need to pour PLEX into skills?


To "stay competitive"?

Wat?

If some guy is pouring twice the amount of PLEX/cash into his accounts as you are, then who deserves the competitive edge?
Its an arbitrary difference that it would be used for skilling an existing character, rather than instead gradually growing a stable of alts, as has been the traditional format to expend excess PLEX/cash.

In both cases, a player who is dumping twice the PLEX/cash into the game, no matter in what form, is going to be "more competitive" than you are. We can agree on that, yes?

That the other guy is expending twice as much as you, for only 50-75% boost, does not make you uncompetitive.
You are getting there much cheaper than he is, albeit, it is taking you a bit longer.
You are therefore "competitive" in terms of having to expend less resources, to achieve the same end.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#122 - 2014-04-07 16:24:15 UTC
I think salvos fancys tippa.
I can't see anything els this could actually be about.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Salvos Rhoska
#123 - 2014-04-07 16:24:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Tippia wrote:
…aside from breaking the skilling and attribute mechanics and unbalancing the game in a way that is expressly forbidden in the EULA.


LOLWAT?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I knew you where bad, but I had no idea you where this terrible.

Source me where it is forbidden in the EULA.

Tippia wrote:
Why is the former needed and what makes you think the second will happen in enough amounts to counter the loss of customers?
Doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest a way for CCP to (supposedly) earn money that CCP abhors so thoroughly that they're currently willing to lose money by enforcing the exact opposite?


Dafuq does this even mean in English? Is your brain a knotted bowl of spaghetti?

Tippia wrote:
So paying to not have mechanics apply to you is inherently a bad idea.
So it doesn't solve anything and is thoroughly unnecessary on top of being a bad idea.
So it actually creates the problems it is intended to solve, making it a self-defeating idea on top of a bad and unnecessary one.

Yes, typical Tippia circular logic. Gets caught in a loop of her own false implications.

There is no "problem" with the current system. I do not support the suggestion of purchaseable boost as a "problem solution".
I support it as an additional PLEX sink, money faucet, and to offer an alternative to players to skill faster, at additional cost, rather than having to wait 10 years of their life. It is an equitable and fair exchange. They pay MORE, and get a reasonable boost (not 100%), in order to have to expend less time. There is no "problem" with that, unless you have one in your own attitudes and subjective bias.

That someone who expends twice the PLEX/cash, would train at 50-75% faster rate, does not cause any problems.
It makes no difference to the rest of players who dont/wont/cant do it. They can continue training at the same rate, at the same expense, as they have throughout EVE.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#124 - 2014-04-07 16:24:22 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If some guy is pouring twice the amount of PLEX/cash into his accounts as you are, then who deserves the competitive edge?
The one who can play the game better.

Quote:
Its an arbitrary difference that it would be used for skilling an existing character, rather than instead gradually growing a stable of alts, as has been the traditional format to expend excess PLEX/cash.
No, it's not an arbitrary difference. In one case, everyone plays under the same rules and use the same mechanics; in the other, one is using completely different rules and bypasses a core mechanic.
Salvos Rhoska
#125 - 2014-04-07 16:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Tippia wrote:
In one case, everyone plays under the same rules and use the same mechanics; in the other, one is using completely different rules and bypasses a core mechanic.


Everyone will still play under the same rules and the same mechanics.
Everyone can make use of the boost.
It doesn't matter whether the option has always been there, because everyone who has always been here hasn't used it anyways, because, it wasnt there.

Afterwards, everyone is still on the same level playing field. Old and new players, both, can use it from that point onwards.
Its still "fair", for everyone.

Its your choice whether you put your PLEX into another month, another toon, or into a boost for one toon.

Everyone can do that. And everyone can choose not to do it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2014-04-07 16:27:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If some guy is pouring twice the amount of PLEX/cash into his accounts as you are, then who deserves the competitive edge?

bugger off
Salvos Rhoska
#127 - 2014-04-07 16:29:55 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
If some guy is pouring twice the amount of PLEX/cash into his accounts as you are, then who deserves the competitive edge?

bugger off


You are being naive and narrow minded.

The PLEX could just as well be poured into hiring mercs or acquisition of advanced armaments.
If someone is pouring more resources into a conflict, that is categorically a competitive edge.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#128 - 2014-04-07 16:30:22 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
I think salvos fancys tippa.
I can't see anything els this could actually be about.


Im well jels naow

Just cos I had that thing with Anslo

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#129 - 2014-04-07 16:31:39 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Source me where it is forbidden in the EULA.
EULA. Notice the part where they say you're not allowed to use game-external methods to acquire anything at an accelerated rate compared to normal gameplay?

Quote:
Dafuq does this even mean in English?
Read the edit.
Again: they currently ban people (i.e. ensure that they make less money) who try to accelerate their accumulation of… well… anything, really. Doesn't it strike as odd to suggest that it's a good idea for them to make money on letting people accelerate the accumulation of something?

Quote:
Yes, typical Tippia circular logic.
How so?

Quote:
There is no "problem" with the current system.
Good. Then there's no need to break it in order to “solve” a problem that doesn't even exist.

Quote:
I support it as an additional PLEX sink, money faucet, and to offer an alternative to players to skill faster, at additional cost, rather than having to wait 10 years of their life.
Why? What problem does it solve? Is that solution worth breaking core game mechanics over? Is that solution worth losing players over? Is that solution worth reversing part of the EULA? Is that solution necessary considering what's already available?
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#130 - 2014-04-07 16:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

To "stay competitive"?


You are the one who is fighting the corner of the concept of "winning the game"

Im playing by your rules.

I dont believe that competition is measured in Isk or SPs, but you seem to.

So, how much SHOULD a new player be expected to spend per month in order to, say for example, fly Battleships within two days?

EDIT: And no, I wont quote somethign you didnt specifically say. Everything you have been saying has led us ALL to infer that you support the OP, whether that was your intended implication or not.

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#131 - 2014-04-07 16:33:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Everyone will still play under the same rules and the same mechanics.
No. The ones who pay will use different rules and mechanics from those who do not.
After all, that's the whole point of the suggestion: “I don't want to use the same mechanics as everyone else — please let me pay to play the game using different rules”.

Quote:
Everyone can do that. And everyone can choose not to do it.
…and “don't use it if you don't like it” remains the most feeble excuse in favour of broken mechanics.
Salvos Rhoska
#132 - 2014-04-07 16:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Tippia wrote:
Notice the part where they say you're not allowed to use game-external methods to acquire anything at an accelerated rate compared to normal gameplay?


You managed to drop even further on the intelligence scale.

So uou think a service provided by CCP would be game-external? You must be trolling. Nobody is this stupid.
Furthermore, though you fail to understand that clause eefers to third party programs, the issue is alrrady quashed by the precedent of existing SP accelerators in various starter packs.

]
Tippia wrote:
NWhy? What problem does it solve? Is that solution worth breaking core game mechanics over? Is that solution worth losing players over? Is that solution worth reversing part of the EULA? Is that solution necessary considering what's already available?


There is "no problem" nor does it "solve any problem".
Nor does it go against the EULA, of which even the suggestion you have made, has genuinely made me question what is wrong with you.

It merely provides a means for players to expend their PLEX/cash in an additional optional way.
Everyone can use it, new and old. There is no unfair advantage to it, beacuse it is open to everyone.

Its just one other way to expend PLEX/cash.
You dont "lose" anything as compared to another guy who spends an extra PLEX for a 50-75% boost.
You will still get the same net SP, it will just take you a bit longer, but you dont have to PLEX for your net SP either.

Those with money, can buy it. Those with PLEX, can do it that way.
Those who dont want to, can just use time instead to reach the same net SP total.

It doesnt create any problems, just another alternative, especially for people who have less time to spare.

Anyone who wants to reach a 10yr account SP total, would have to expend around 150%more PLEX/cash to do so, than someonw who sis it the conventional way. And it would still take them about 7 years to do so.

Nobody "loses".

And please, stop using the word "mechanic" wrong.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
PrettyMuch Always Right
Doomheim
#133 - 2014-04-07 16:49:51 UTC  |  Edited by: PrettyMuch Always Right
Tippia wrote:
EULA. Notice the part where they say you're not allowed to use game-external methods to acquire anything at an accelerated rate compared to normal gameplay?

Now you're just being absurd. CCP adjusting their game into a new set of mechanics is not an EULA infraction. The rules are referenced against players working outside the game's regular mechanics. This is not the same as CCP themselves adding a new game mechanic to speed up training time for ISK.

Tippia wrote:
Read the edit.
Again: they currently ban people (i.e. ensure that they make less money) who try to accelerate their accumulation of… well… anything, really. Doesn't it strike as odd to suggest that it's a good idea for them to make money on letting people accelerate the accumulation of something?

They are banning people for breaking the EULA. If you are purchasing PLEX-for-SP through CCP, you are not breaking the EULA. You are confusing yourself by combining two entirely seperate things.

Tippia wrote:
Good. Then there's no need to break it in order to “solve” a problem that doesn't even exist.

This idea is not a fix, this is new content.

Tippia wrote:
Why? What problem does it solve? Is that solution worth breaking core game mechanics over? Is that solution worth losing players over? Is that solution worth reversing part of the EULA? Is that solution necessary considering what's already available?

It's supposed to be something extra (hence ISK sink) to spend your ISK on. I don't think it's needed either, but I also don't think it's trying to fix a problem.



I actually agree with you Tippia. I don't like this idea much either. What I don't agree with is arguing against common logic to make my point.

EDIT: Apologies about the formatting. Cannot edit my posts for 5 minutes with this character. Let me guess though... working as intended? Blink
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#134 - 2014-04-07 16:51:38 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So uou think a service provided by CCP would be game-external?
I sure as hell don't have any € or $ in-game…

So: doesn't it strike you as odd to suggest they earn money on something they're currently willing to ban people over?

Quote:
There is "no problem" nor does it "solve any problem".
Then it is a worthless idea that has no benefit whatsoever (on top of being fundamentally bad for the game and self-defeating). If it doesn't solve any kind of problem, it is not needed.

Quote:
It merely provides a means for players to expend their PLEX/cash in an additional optional way.
…which isn't needed.

Quote:
Its just one other way to expend PLEX/cash.
…which isn't needed.

[quote]You dont "lose" anything as compared to another guy who spends an extra PLEX for a 50-75% boost.[/quote}This is just as incorrect as the first time you were wrong about it, and for the same reason.
Salvos Rhoska
#135 - 2014-04-07 16:54:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
You dont need a cupholder in your car either, but it is an option, and lack of a cup holder is not a reason not to build a car.

A 50-75% boost for PLEX or cash somewhere between the cost of GTC and PLEX just offers an alternative way to invest it.

This is not a "problem", its a usedul option to those who wish to make use of it.
Those who dont, can continue life in their car without a cupholder.

Old and new players can make equal use of it.
RL rich players and PLEX rich players can make use of it.

Its not any different in that sense from the existing status quo.

Raging about this is silly.

Did you rage like this about the Alt-training option from CCP too?

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#136 - 2014-04-07 16:57:25 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Y
Those who dont, can continue life in their car without a cupholder.


By cupholder, you appear to mean a turbocharged engine adding 250 extra BHP that, if misused will flip the car upside down and explode the occupants

But yeah totally Roll

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#137 - 2014-04-07 16:58:21 UTC
PrettyMuch Always Right wrote:
Now you're just being absurd. CCP adjusting their game into a new set of mechanics is not an EULA infraction.
That wasn't the point either. The point is that accelerated acquisition compared to normal gameplay is such a bad thing — in this game as in many others — that they've explicitly put it in the rules that they'd rather not take your money than have it in the game.

Quote:
This idea is not a fix, this is new content.
It provides zero content. Also, read the OP: it is meant to fix the “problem” that there is a gulf between old and new players. Of course, it does nothing of the kind — in fact, it does the exact opposite.

Quote:
It's supposed to be something extra (hence ISK sink) to spend your ISK on. I don't think it's needed either, but I also don't think it's trying to fix a problem.
It doesn't sink any ISK.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#138 - 2014-04-07 17:00:36 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
You dont need a cupholder in your car either, but it is an option, and lack of a cup holder is not a reason not to build a car.
Cupholders don't let you drive at 120 MPH through a built-up area.

Quote:
This is not a "problem", its a usedul option to those who wish to make use of it.
…which isn't needed.

Quote:
Old and new players can make equal use of it.
…which defeats to the point of creating and then inverting the problem it was intended to fix.

Quote:
Its not any different in that sense from the existing status quo.
…except for the ability to pay cash to not have game mechanics apply to you.
Salvos Rhoska
#139 - 2014-04-07 17:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Y
Those who dont, can continue life in their car without a cupholder.


By cupholder, you appear to mean a turbocharged engine adding 250 extra BHP that, if misused will flip the car upside down and explode the occupants

But yeah totally Roll


Its not that kind of P2W though.
This isnt WoW. It doesnt supercharge your toons performance.

It just means for an additional expense, your toon trains faster.
Other players who dont buy it will get there too, it just takes them a bit longer, and also costs them nothing additional.

Think about this contretely.

Lets say you and I both have 2 PLEXs.
You choose to spend those to maintain one toon, and train it 50-75% faster.
Whereas I choose to spend mine on maintaining two accounts, with 6 toons total.
A third guy instead chooses to spend his by maintaining one account, and parallel training his 2nd toon on that account.
A fourth guy decides to sell his for ISK to fund his terrible PvP endevours.
Fifth guy uses one to convert to AUR, and maintain his main account with painted ships.

I have no problem with any of the above. Why do you?

I tend to agree I would prefer the option was PLEX specific, rather than purchaseable by cash. But it really makes very little objective difference. However that might reduce the kneejerk reaction some superficial people have ro any mention of cash transactions.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Ramona McCandless
Silent Vale
LinkNet
#140 - 2014-04-07 17:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ramona McCandless
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Think about this contretely.

Lets say you and I both have 2 PLEXs.
You choose to spend those to maintain one toon, and train it 50-75% faster.
Whereas I choose to spend mine on maintaining two accounts, with 6 toons total.
A third guy instead chooses to spend his by maintaining one account, and parallel training his 2nd toon on that account.
A fourth guy decides to sell his for ISK to fund his terrible PvP endevours.
Fifth guy uses one to convert to AUR, and maintain his main account with painted ships.

I have no problem with any of the above. Why do you?

I tend to agree I would prefer the option was PLEX specific, rather than purchaseable by cash. But it really makes very little objective difference. However that might reduce the kneejerk reaction some superficial people have ro any mention of cash transactions.


Because in order to do that a central and defining feature of the game (How quickly one trains skills) has to be modified without me knowing or trying to work out the possible outcomes such a change has on the nature of the game.

I dont make changes to a programme without working out the possible outcomes first

I dont change up a recipe without the same

I dont remove a Jenga block without at least making an educated guess as to why removing that block is a good idea.

Further, Ive already said that giving a new player the ability to train a BS in two weeks is a bad idea. Why? Well because that player will be in that ship with no idea how to operate it and will most likely have a bad time.

There are enough people out there with Tactical Shield Manipulation 5 as it is.

Oh, and it would pretty much make the Character Bizairre and Implants worthless over night. Which in the case of implants means rewriting all the loot tables involving implants.

And why stop at SPs?

Why not have ore available for 80m tons per $5 spent?

"Yea, some dude came in and was normal for first couple months, so I gave him director." - Sean Dunaway

"A singular character could be hired to penetrate another corps space... using gorilla like tactics..." - Chane Morgann