These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading

First post First post First post
Author
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5921 - 2015-12-01 17:14:14 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
4) If I intend to farm SP for profit then it's a good bet that many others will do the same - This may be an "ambiguous assertion" or to be correct "an appeal to an anonymous authority" but as I said I think making a profit & saving real life monies will encourage lots of producers.
Market forces will balance things out - SO - there will be as many as I want to buy as long as I have money to do so - That's ISK or REAL-LIFE money - and that's PAY TO WIN
You can buy things in game so therefore the game is pay to win? Or is it SP specifically and we just went back into "SP is winning" and further advocating the ideal of sub time alone being deserving of "victory"?


Yes it is SP specifically:
Not the whole package of SP wrapped in a character that will replace one of your alts.
Not the imaginary SP that you seem to think are tied to winning - remember experience is not tied to SP
But the SP that are the only thing preventing real life money being the deciding factor on in game advantage.


You can buy everything in the game EXCEPT Skill Points -- That's the Point of ALL the Con arguments referring to Pay 2 Win


You can talk about sub time/ deserving victory / SP is winning / Bazaar purchases / experience over SP --- it doesn't matter -- if you don't get that its about letting go of the only non-tradable item that is preventing anyone from buying EVERYTHING needed for advantage you will never get it.



Ok it's clear to me now, you are wrong.
Escobar Sr
Gang Bang You're Dead
Wrecktical Supremacy.
#5922 - 2015-12-01 18:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Escobar Sr
So, to get things straight, as most people who are against this put it:

- If I, a new EvE player who tried it in Trial, decide to cash my account with @500$ in plex, sell and get +-25B in ISK, go on the Bazaar and buy a 50Mil SP toon, it's okay. Even if it has a bad reputation etc, even if I don't know wtf I'm doing in a ship, for everybody who'll see me behind that Chart, it's okay. For a few weeks/months, until everybody acknowledges the new Owner, it's okay.
- EvE online, through the eyes of one of my best friend is exactly like this:

"You don't need to harvest experience from game, you just need some ISK from time to time to afford ships and modules and implants and whatnot, but besides that, your game presence is not needed. You can PLEX for 2 Years straight, and come back from time to time to check your Skill Queue to have something in there. EvE Online is not like any other RPG in which you must grind, like WoW for example. In WoW, with boosts, you can reach max level in less than one week. You can get the gear you like, it gives you the awesome feeling of being able to do everything. Until... Until you reach specific raids and dungeons. In there you see who knows what and who's Daddy's Boy/Girl."

- Even if CCP implement this TSP stuff, there is one thing they won't be able to sell for Money, Plex, ISK, AUR, which is game experience. An old player will know what a ship is capable of, bait fits, troll fits, good fits, bad fits etc, will know what rewards does a complex yield, will know which rats trigger the next spawn, will know relic sites are better than data sites, will know when to de-aggro and save his ship, will know when to use a Booster, and many other examples. Game experience is the most important part, compared to whatever you will imply being pay to win. As a matter of fact, I would love to see some EvE Leeroy Jenkins here, just to prove a point.

- Instead of implementing TSP, why not give implants that give a certain amount of attributes, for a specific amount of time, for a specific account. Kinda like when I made my account. I received an Implant that gave me +17 to all attributes, the Advanced Cerebral Accelerator. Was gaining SP like crazy. Instead of making this 7 days, why not making the same as for Skill packets, based on the total skill points trained before consumption:

0 – 5 million skillpoints = Implant of +17 until 5mil SPs
5 – 50 million skillpoints = Implant of +14 until 50 Mil SPs
50 – 80 million skillpoints = Implant of +11 until 80 Mil SPs
> 80 million skillpoints = Implant of +7 (like the Elite ones released couple years ago) until further notice

In my honest opinion, this would make things easier and will solve many complaints. Just like in real life (as some may say), if you did wrong, it's forgiven but not forgot.
joehillbilly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5923 - 2015-12-01 19:50:38 UTC
Alavaria Fera, 1 To frame an argument, does not imply regret. Disappointment, yes. 1) Estel Arador was a unique solution within the game dynamic that could have been implemented at a much earlier time. For whatever reason, it was not.

Rat Scout, Never liked it. Unfortunately, it was a rational response to real RMT issues. Don't know a better solution. It appears that people buying characters in the bazaar are older more experienced pilots. The people I know in game that do buy characters were in several years before buying additional characters.

Suede, I sincerely appreciate the details. Could not find anything in here. I only went on what I remembered other pilots talking about at the time. Didn't know about a lot of out of game resources at the time.

Lady Rift, I had started running navy missions for gallente before I understood faction standings. Switched to sisters and trained diploamcy. Cosmos missions helped some. At that time, I did not know about the provi options.

I am glad that so much discussion is being had on this topic. The jump timer rules were changed because of large discussions like this one.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5924 - 2015-12-01 19:53:01 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Yes it is SP specifically:
Not the whole package of SP wrapped in a character that will replace one of your alts.
Not the imaginary SP that you seem to think are tied to winning - remember experience is not tied to SP
So what's the problem then? Since you've taken the initiative to make this claim despite knowing it's a false representation of my position, lets have you justify it. You kinda need to since you just did the opposite. You just said they aren't winning, but defined this as pay to win. Make up your mind or justify how buying an aspect that doesn't convey victory is paying to win.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
But the SP that are the only thing preventing real life money being the deciding factor on in game advantage.
Bullshit. Money was never not the deciding factor. SP comes from paid accounts. Non-paid accounts can't generate it. The longer you've had your money put into accessing the game (or in the case of PLEX someone else') the more potential SP you have. My advantage over a new player is 5 years worth of sub price.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
You can buy everything in the game EXCEPT Skill Points -- That's the Point of ALL the Con arguments referring to Pay 2 Win
And the point of all the Pro comments in opposition to that reasoning is that your justification is a self serving twist of facts trying to make this P2W apply selectively to this idea but somehow not to:

1) Veteran players with the advantages of SP, which are definitively characterized as winning
2) The fact that money does and has for some time equaled sp due to needing an active sub to accrue it

Iowa Banshee wrote:
You can talk about sub time/ deserving victory / SP is winning / Bazaar purchases / experience over SP --- it doesn't matter -- if you don't get that its about letting go of the only non-tradable item that is preventing anyone from buying EVERYTHING needed for advantage you will never get it.
There is nothing to get beyond realizing that some people don't want their veteran ivory towers to be encroached by others who haven't waited years for reasons that have no justification besides "it's always been that way." They'll gloss over, as you just did, the fact that those advantages are a) not insurmountable, else the SP system would in itself be gamebreaking to begin with, and b) open to anyone who had a desire and will to take advantage of the game's isk earning avenues to eliminate any real money need.

SP is only immutable because the current rules make it so, not because it needs to be in order to function. If you don't believe SP is winning, you're holding on to a justification that holds no weight.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5925 - 2015-12-01 20:25:50 UTC
Actually lets just simplify the questions a bit on this pay to win thing:

How is it ok for vets to have experience and SP while on the same field as new players with neither, but only allow those new players the ability to actively seek parity in one of those two aspects?

If that's acceptable doesn't that basically state SP isn't so important as to need the special "protection" of being time gate only?

If not acceptable, why would we argue so hard to maintain that dynamic?

For me the current dynamic is acceptable. I DO NOT see SP as winning. As a result I don't see an issue with someone having more SP because:

a) They bought PLEX
b) They earn isk faster
c) They are part of a certain social group
d) They played longer

More importantly I don't see any as specifically more deserving SP than the others. Nor do I think the supposedly negative possibilities with a) invalidate the potentially positive possibilities with b) or c).
Suede
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5926 - 2015-12-01 22:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Suede
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Rat Scout wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:


Why don't you try reading it again so you'll see the part you quote is in the : Argument against the new system Roll



..... yes exactly.

Just to be clear I am in favor of the new system, and every single argument against it can be refuted in 140 characters or less. Want proof? List the reasons you feel are valid against the new SP trade and I will respond after a nap.

:ps I can see how my fail quote snip suggests the opposite, meant to trim that line as well, but my response still stands, the "Con" crowd keep bringing up the "consequences" argument when in reality there is less with the current system then the new one.



Stagnation: If you could play for free & not bother training would you ?


I have 2 subscriptions with characters @ 49/24/27 Mill SP & 45/20/18 Mill SP.

Training Acct 1 main for a carrier pilot, 2nd Scanning/ Pi, 3rd industrial / market seller
Training Acct 2 main for industrial command (already a booster), 2nd & 3rd scanning / Pi alts


Since they were introduced I have always used 1 multi-train per month (bought with ISK at the market) - and - in addition about every 2 -3 months I dual training on my 2nd account.


- I don't need really a carrier pilot it's just something I want to achieve - I'm in WH space & happy where I am.
- My pi Alts are good enough at their jobs
- I don't need an industrial command to be in a Rorqual - If I was moving to low or null sec but for the WH an orca will do.

If it is possible to farm SP at a profit (say 10% return - market forces dictate that they need to make a profit for anyone to sell them). With TSP income and what I make in WH space - I will be able to play the game for free.

Of course I don't want to stagnate or actually give up my training goals BUT this may give me a better goal... and playing for free may make stagnation a sweet alternative to continual training.

Just one step towards the ultimate aim of any free to play financial model - getting the players to pay for progression
( if you have to pay for it then it is less likely to happen ).



Pay To WIn :

I would prefer

-- If you don't like the bazaar - sell a $40 item to package an alt for sale on the market
-- Think newbies need to train faster - introduce boosters with diminishing return
-- Upset with your past training choices - sell a $20 item for remapping

Don't make the effort of gaining skills worthless by selling skill points.

I don't want TSP as proposed because it will fundamentally change core gameplay features please don't make a system where I can buy as many SP as I want and just pay to win.



If you are paying a subscription to CCP, everything you paid in the subscription should be all in, it is bit silly that you have to pay again for like an pair of jeans or some other ingame item. CCP is going more Pay to Win having a pay to buy SP is just a bad idea it total wrongs the way eve online is.

Just a shame that CCP only cares more about the money then it paying player base and not to listen to it paying player base,
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#5927 - 2015-12-01 22:45:47 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Actually lets just simplify the questions a bit on this pay to win thing:

How is it ok for vets to have experience and SP while on the same field as new players with neither, but only allow those new players the ability to actively seek parity in one of those two aspects?

If that's acceptable doesn't that basically state SP isn't so important as to need the special "protection" of being time gate only?

If not acceptable, why would we argue so hard to maintain that dynamic?

Because when you hit a certain SP number, achievement unlocked. And gamerscore.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5928 - 2015-12-01 22:48:56 UTC
Rat Scout wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
[quote=Tyberius Franklin][quote=Iowa Banshee]SNIP



Ok it's clear to me now, you are wrong.


Ok It's clear to me now, you are a troll
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5929 - 2015-12-01 23:02:22 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Actually lets just simplify the questions a bit on this pay to win thing:

How is it ok for vets to have experience and SP while on the same field as new players with neither, but only allow those new players the ability to actively seek parity in one of those two aspects?

If that's acceptable doesn't that basically state SP isn't so important as to need the special "protection" of being time gate only?

If not acceptable, why would we argue so hard to maintain that dynamic?

For me the current dynamic is acceptable. I DO NOT see SP as winning. As a result I don't see an issue with someone having more SP because:

a) They bought PLEX
b) They earn isk faster
c) They are part of a certain social group
d) They played longer

More importantly I don't see any as specifically more deserving SP than the others. Nor do I think the supposedly negative possibilities with a) invalidate the potentially positive possibilities with b) or c).


I see..... You simply don't understand the terminology

Pay to Win is a financial model that a games company can operate under
Subscribe to play if a different financial model a games company can operate under
Free to play is another financial model a games company can operate under


Search for Daniel Kaszor & http://business.financialpost.com - He has a series of articles about MMO financial models and the detrimental effects on players of switching models. In particular the switch from subscription to pay to win - I think the frereium may be a better alternative for the player base

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5930 - 2015-12-01 23:57:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Iowa Banshee wrote:
I see..... You simply don't understand the terminology
No, you're making a mistake in your conclusion as will be demonstrated.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
Pay to Win is a financial model that a games company can operate under
Subscribe to play if a different financial model a games company can operate under
Free to play is another financial model a games company can operate under
No, P2W is not a financial model itself. P2W is a means of encouraging players to spend more. P2W is just a side effect of games trying to create incentives for players to part with their money for an advantage.

One of the core tenets there is that the only means to have a certain advantages is real money. That isn't the case as proposed for buying TSP (and is quite frankly already the case for time gated SP as things stand). One cannot exchange real money for TSP unless creating it from their own SP via extractors. And further they must do so for loss if they intent to re-inject it for other skills.

So basically one can pay for isk at the expense of the SP they gain over time. So essentially PLEX with more effort and potentially more volatile return.

For the buyer of the TSP cask via PLEX is an option, but as stated there is no reasoning that justifies the idea of SP needing to be treated differently than anything else aside from appeals to the way it has been and inconsistent measures of importance (it's not too important to deny new players, but is too important to allow them access?). Further real money cost isn't mandated either. Rather any real money solution requires sufficient in game earners to make the system work.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
Search for Daniel Kaszor & http://business.financialpost.com - He has a series of articles about MMO financial models and the detrimental effects on players of switching models. In particular the switch from subscription to pay to win - I think the frereium may be a better alternative for the player base
Sure, I'll take a look, but honestly given the issues with the statements thus far I don't think we'll come to an agreement.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5931 - 2015-12-02 00:35:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Iowa Banshee
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
I see..... You simply don't understand the terminology
No, you're making a mistake in your conclusion as will be demonstrated.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
Pay to Win is a financial model that a games company can operate under
Subscribe to play if a different financial model a games company can operate under
Free to play is another financial model a games company can operate under
No, P2W is not a financial model itself. P2W is a means of encouraging players to spend more. P2W is just a side effect of games trying to create incentives for players to part with their money for an advantage.

One of the core tenets there is that the only means to have a certain advantages is real money. That isn't the case as proposed for buying TSP (and is quite frankly already the case for time gated SP as things stand). One cannot exchange real money for TSP unless creating it from their own SP via extractors. And further they must do so for loss if they intent to re-inject it for other skills.

So basically one can pay for isk at the expense of the SP they gain over time. So essentially PLEX with more effort and potentially more volatile return.

For the buyer of the TSP cask via PLEX is an option, but as stated there is no reasoning that justifies the idea of SP needing to be treated differently than anything else aside from appeals to the way it has been and inconsistent measures of importance (it's not too important to deny new players, but is too important to allow them access?). Further real money cost isn't mandated either. Rather any real money solution requires sufficient in game earners to make the system work.

Iowa Banshee wrote:
Search for Daniel Kaszor & http://business.financialpost.com - He has a series of articles about MMO financial models and the detrimental effects on players of switching models. In particular the switch from subscription to pay to win - I think the frereium may be a better alternative for the player base
Sure, I'll take a look, but honestly given the issues with the statements thus far I don't think we'll come to an agreement.



Then read this @ http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/separating-free-to-play-and-pay-to-win

When the quote -
" It’s when the “wallet warriors” always win that causes other players to get frustrated and bail out "

When this concept gets applied to the game players will leave
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5932 - 2015-12-02 00:38:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Then read this @ http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/separating-free-to-play-and-pay-to-win

When the quote -
" It’s when the “wallet warriors” always win that causes other players to get frustrated and bail out "

When this concept gets applied to the game players will leave
The quote I agree with; what I don't agree with is the idea that this change creates that scenario.

Does that help clear things up a bit?
MrsKaye
Doomheim
#5933 - 2015-12-02 01:12:36 UTC  |  Edited by: MrsKaye
From a casual players perspective, this is a GREAT idea.

To those who don't agree, what's the real difference between this and the bazaar?
The Bazaar is weak with stupid character names and bad character history that isn't even relevant to the new player.

The game really needs new blood anyway, and should stay competitive with 100Million dollar kickstarter projects that won't require
skill points at all to fly ships.

What the heck is wrong with CCP making a little profit with micro-transactions, that help new players at least show up to engagements rather than bail within the trial period because the bar is set too high.
joehillbilly
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5934 - 2015-12-02 06:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: joehillbilly
Reading some of the posts, it looks like eve will become "world of spaceships" . no more mining, just buy "premium currency". Logi is nerfed (why not just kill it off). manufacturing won't be needed, CCP can just let you buy the ships. All of those crafty haulers won't be needed as there will be no manufacturing.

The idea of the lore and the only common thread left is going to be irrelevant. It doesn't make spaceships go boom faster. PLEX will be an active requirement just to stay relatively competitive. Kind of like the backwards move for games on touch screen devices. 2D is easier to digest and the easy access of that technology make it another mind numbing experience.

The idea of instant gratification is king. I like eve because it is a journey as much as a game. Lets just be like all of the other MMO's. Of course, the turn over will be high, but hey, let it role the cash until it burns out in 3-5 years.

Lets just milk eve for cash until Valkyrie and gunjack displace it in revenue.

How this ever came to the fore front of a game that was based on history, lore and a common thread that all players had to endure. Everyone could relate to and even respect the diligence of those who trained regularly.

Oh, well. I guess PvP is the only real cash generator for CCP. So, pew pew goes the multi faceted sandbox of old eve and in comes the straight line logic tree of show me the money. Pay to win or not. The older comments of dumbing down the game are gaining more relevance.

It appears that the squeeky wheels will win as the older guys have no approval of the whole social network model of mob rule.

I am glad to have the friends online that I have found as long as they last before boredom runs them off as well.

http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/3/2933/learningcurve4.jpg

I wonder if the dev's or the CSM are still following this thread..........
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#5935 - 2015-12-02 06:34:16 UTC
joehillbilly wrote:
Lets just milk eve for cash until Valkyrie and gunjack displace it in revenue.

Is that what we said about World of "psssh" Darkness and Dust "Laser Headshot" and/or Legion?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5936 - 2015-12-02 17:28:23 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:



Then read this @ http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/separating-free-to-play-and-pay-to-win

When the quote -
" It’s when the “wallet warriors” always win that causes other players to get frustrated and bail out "

When this concept gets applied to the game players will leave


Everybody who is suggesting that TSP's are a bad thing somehow ignore the fact that everything they complain about already exists in EvE via the character bazar. Not a single complaint is strictly caused by the changes, but rather current flaws in the game are used as a logical fallacy.

I cant respond with sensible arguments to your complaints because they are true today and will be whether CCP goes ahead with this version of TSP or not.

Bitter-vet syndrome is not a good excuse to throttle progression when the possibility of improvement for EvE is at least 50%
A Ingus
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
#5937 - 2015-12-02 17:47:01 UTC
Rat Scout wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:



Then read this @ http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/separating-free-to-play-and-pay-to-win

When the quote -
" It’s when the “wallet warriors” always win that causes other players to get frustrated and bail out "

When this concept gets applied to the game players will leave


Everybody who is suggesting that TSP's are a bad thing somehow ignore the fact that everything they complain about already exists in EvE via the character bazar. Not a single complaint is strictly caused by the changes, but rather current flaws in the game are used as a logical fallacy.

I cant respond with sensible arguments to your complaints because they are true today and will be whether CCP goes ahead with this version of TSP or not.

Bitter-vet syndrome is not a good excuse to throttle progression when the possibility of improvement for EvE is at least 50%

There have been so many posts back and forth about how the character bazaar is not the same thing. The logical fallacy for your point is that if it was the same thing there would be no reason to introduce TSPs. There would be no OP.

Also, you can characterize all the critiques of the OP as bittervet syndrome that throttles progression all you want, it does not make it so.

Finally, you can pull a fifty percent chance of TSPs improving the game, whatever that is to you, out of your posterior all you want. It doesn't conceal the fact that you just made up your own statistic.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#5938 - 2015-12-02 18:14:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Don ZOLA
Rat Scout wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:



Then read this @ http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/08/13/separating-free-to-play-and-pay-to-win

When the quote -
" It’s when the “wallet warriors” always win that causes other players to get frustrated and bail out "

When this concept gets applied to the game players will leave


Everybody who is suggesting that TSP's are a bad thing somehow ignore the fact that everything they complain about already exists in EvE via the character bazar. Not a single complaint is strictly caused by the changes, but rather current flaws in the game are used as a logical fallacy.

I cant respond with sensible arguments to your complaints because they are true today and will be whether CCP goes ahead with this version of TSP or not.

Bitter-vet syndrome is not a good excuse to throttle progression when the possibility of improvement for EvE is at least 50%


It is kind of pointless to discuss with you when you start with lie, but I have no problem to stress it again. On character bazaar you can buy characters. You do not have option to buy SP and inject it to your original character.

And a whole issue does not even have to do much with bitter vet syndrome but with lack of consistency in game fundamentals which will definitely make people ask themselves do they really want to pay for the service where they cannot make long term plans as who know what else can be changed, obviously nothing is sacred anymore in the "rush for gold".

Let alone that it will fail miserably in getting large number of players and keeping them in the game.

Edit: And LOL for 50% estimation. Really funny :) . BTW seems you forgot that this came became what it was at its peak because CCP actually listened to those bitter vet players and those bitter vets were the biggest reason why it grew. We can see the trend and direction after they started listening others or not listening to anyone at all.

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know

Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5939 - 2015-12-02 19:08:39 UTC
A Ingus wrote:

There have been so many posts back and forth about how the character bazaar is not the same thing. The logical fallacy for your point is that if it was the same thing there would be no reason to introduce TSPs. There would be no OP.

Also, you can characterize all the critiques of the OP as bittervet syndrome that throttles progression all you want, it does not make it so.

Finally, you can pull a fifty percent chance of TSPs improving the game, whatever that is to you, out of your posterior all you want. It doesn't conceal the fact that you just made up your own statistic.


I am surprised you managed to see trough my bullshit statistic yet you missed the part where I said the SYMPTOMS of character bazar are the same as trading SP, I never said the means by which skill points trade on the market are the same.
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5940 - 2015-12-02 19:12:08 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:


Let alone that it will fail miserably in getting large number of players and keeping them in the game.



This is about CCP getting more revenue, not about more new players. Do some math and figure out how much money is generated for CCP by trading a 50m character now vs the near future with TSP's.