These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6081 - 2015-12-07 22:22:03 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:
Arguments we are discussing in your list are not even among major concerns I wrote about. You would know if you read them. You have opportunity 24/7 to go and read. That you won`t is pretty telling Blink
Not saying they are, just that your posting here does give me some ideas about your reasoning as a whole, but leaves a few questions unanswered. I don't think those answers will have much meaning given what you've provided though.

But you have a post history same as everyone else' and could easily resolve this. You keep talking up these posts but won't present them .That you don't is pretty telling.

Quote:
In order to know if they are weak, you would have to go and read them firstSmile Empty, shallow classifications wont help.
Yet shallow classifications are the lens you've been using to view me for a while now. I genuinely wonder if you're capable of viewing me as an individual capable of individual thought and conclusion instead of the agenda you've constructed and spent so much time trying to mold me into.

Quote:
So you are posting because you believe it is beneficial, yet you cannot make any argument why it is beneficial to eve player base instead of minority plus you do not even want to read side effects mentioned by others. I totally trust you Lol

I do not think everyone have to come to the same conclusion I had. Even when stated my wots i said numerous times I just need someone to explain me what is wrong there, am I over worried for the game. I wrote my concerns to CCP so they can "comfort" me. To keep me and numerous others as customers. I have no problem at all to accept some points in discussion when point is made. I even agreed to some points you have made to be beneficial (even though they are not beneficial for a major player base).

1. Ok, then i understood it wrong, sorry (yet I do not believe you but nvm)
2. No, I am just countering your list, since I do not find anything beneficial for major player base there and I find huge threats in side effects. Not even sure how did we get to these other quotes since I stopped most of the posting hundreds pages ago. My main reasoning is in 4-5 WOT`s somewhere in this thread. And while you state it as weak, you should be able to challenge it easily. Instead you go in digressions, claiming you are not wrong even when it is obvious you are etc.
3. Yea because you totally could not lie, speaking form alt character. Totally trustworthy approach.We all believe you. Or to say it in your manner "fortunately most people even on your side of this debate can see through this BS. Reason why they support you is that they have same aims in personal gains aimed, trolling or lack of knowledge/understanding". See what I did there?
I made a list of them, you just keep marginalizing it or worse wholly misrepresenting parts of the argument.

As far as reading side effect, go ahead and post them. I've responded to many on that very subject beyond even this thread. That you want me to feel obligated to you specifically to seek out your thoughts on the matter isn't a feeling I share. If you want me to respond, post it.

1) Don't care if you do or don't, mainly because, again, I'm led to believe you aren't actually trying to understand the person here anymore, but rather use the
2) The larger portion of the player base will have this as mere background noise. A feature with little use and not much point in investing in as a seller. That's because we're largely years old vets. But if the claim is, as it seems to be here, that this dynamic is not helpful or beneficial to that large population that it isn't to those that could and would use it then I can't help but feel that my earlier analysis of your myopic viewpoint is further justified.You're basically saying "no matter how much it could help this group, since each benefit doesn't effect everyone none of it matters."
3) I could, but the most important thing to bear in mind is that one of our positions is defensible simply by sticking to the topic, where the other feels the need to play the "for your benefit" card when trying to make any argument. On top of that, to the best of your knowledge I could just as well not be lying. But for some reason that possibility is easy for you to ignore. Convenience maybe?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6082 - 2015-12-07 22:24:18 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:
Speaking from experience I`d say Roll

And yes, it is, the journey of thousand miles starts with a step. Well guess what, this is not even first step in this direction.
Ok, so basically you just described a slippery slope fallacy and tried to make it sound like the right way to make a point.

Also I've been painfully direct in my responses to you, that you would suggest I have a problem with deflection is laughable.
Berrice Silf
Academy of the Imperial Guards
#6083 - 2015-12-07 22:31:00 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Berrice Silf wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Berrice Silf wrote:
Your missing my point, even if its just by a single person for whom money is no object, because he could do it. Then imagine Eveboard with the same name at the top of all the lists. Its not logical but highly possible and when the TSP goes live even doable.

I did actually mean to put also in my previous post that once a player got to 50m the skill packages would cease to deliver any return.

@Rat scout : Your intellectual input is about 5 higher on the IQ scale than general lootit at least Tyberius uses his brain before typing and offers a proper discussion.
So instead of viewing SP for it's functional utility we're now looking at it as a contest and further, a contest which is entirely predetermined in it's results since there's no way to change the order of who got here first?

That's a hard to swallow justification.

Ive had a few discussions over different aspects but however hard it is to swallow over the money vs time invested quote it becomes reality with the TSP in its current incarnation. However illogical it maybe and in a different league to me you don't know who is behind any pilot and what there finances allow them to do.

If i was in any of those lists and became superseded by cash injected pilot the game would be over.

Time is invested either way, that some people may soon be able to trade theirs doesn't make it any less the investment of time. And the investment of cash can still only buy SP in the form of a sub directly. Otherwise it can only be used to buy someones actually invested in game time (vs just buying the sub and not investing time in gameplay).

So we have some conveniently ignored facts:
1) Cash for SP is the mechanic in play now via subs
2) All this does is allow that SP to be shuffled
3) Access purchased is not time invested
4) PLEX already relocates actual time investment

Combine these and we see that whatever metric you're using to measure Hilmar's words is either flawed or was wrong well before he ever stated it.

Im not disagreeing with anything you stated above, What im trying to get you to see is however bizarre it may seem if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#6084 - 2015-12-07 22:37:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
a) No, you just made an argument predicated on it being static. One that states the option to ear more isk isn't valid and used average wallet values, a static metric, as an attempt at proof. It's not that the quality of my posts is going down, it's that your shaky logic is getting easier to quickly address quickly. That and knowing what irrelevant filler to avoid biting.
b) No, I'm saying that you saying you don't feel that way is correct, and that others you know not feeling that way is also correct (assuming you've interpreted that correctly), but also that any subset that doesn't feel that way doesn't invalidate the subset that does. Therefore no single players individual feelings, or even a group of players feelings on the matter makes that point wrong unless that group is every player in the game.
e) Most things worth that much aren't useful to those players, this is a large exception to that rule that mitigates the traditional risks associated with giving high value rewards to new players. Think about how this works mechanically for a moment vs anything else you could give a new player.
g)In game demand drives in game prices, but not out of game demand. Out of game demand depresses prices, and a need for in game isk drives out of game demand. If this is as you say a driver for isk need it will drive out of game purchases and further increase PLEX supply. That depresses in game cost.
h) Average SP is a moving point in a veteran driven game, so the very basis of you argument is a point with an generally upward velocity.
k) I'm not in any particular disagreement with the direction, just that the metric stands even without pushing people to lowsec
m) I think you're just not properly accounting for the reasons for PLEX purchases from CCP.
n) Then is solves it for that segment, which is a gain. How important that is in that period for a player, and thus the long term effects, are highly speculative, but at the least you see there is an effect.


a) I can understand that you do not understand economy at all. But to blindly deny being wrong so many times does not come with the "game sake posting". You are on your own crusade. Now let me explain you something. Economy is not static. Not income, neither expenses. Higher income for average players will demand higher expenses. In average there could probably be parallel line of expenses compared to income. Why? Because in order to go make isk, they will get lose ships, ammo, poses, hauls, whatever. So it is not like they just need to go out and make isk. That is why that line is not vertical. Another graph line in that graph clearly shows slow trend of growth. You cannot see incredible growth when the new ships or other stuff hit the server. Why not? Everyone can earn isk, knowledge is accessible by everyone, everyone wants new stuff? If average wallet was 500mil why not quadriple so everyone buys new battleships? Why not then? Because people are not bots, nor they are willing to sacrifice their comfort zone just like that. And that is the very same reason it will not go boom for SP, and why TSP will remain expansive for average players. And also, that is why you are egocentrical. You do not have knowledge about something, you do not understand it, yet you do not want to admit to be wrong (so you dont lose your crusade i`d guess).
b) But we are not hakuna matata society, there is no chance for everyone in the game to agree on a single subject. The thing is about choices, you can choose now to have it that way, so in future nothing will change. You will still have choice to identify with your char, same as purchasing new one from char bazaar.
e) Not really, give someone 300mils and he can make a fortune of the market. Instructions how to do it are there, open to everyone. Perfect scenario while you "sit and wait skills to finish". Why we do not see corps doing that? Even for older chars, will they rather give him full fitted bs to go and earn isk or they will give him 300 mils to gain something he would already have next week anyway?
g) Out of game demand? Are you drunk? I was totally right with quote in previous post regarding "coming from experience". What out of game demand you digressed to? We are talking about Eve Online, Plex and TSP. Please comment on those since I am not aware of any out of game demand for isk (unless Icelands currency), plex or TSP.
h) Average SP is not static, same as wallet. Regardless if it is veteran driven or not. Both grow at certain rate. Yet it does not affect my point at all and I find the lack of your counter argument disturbing! Just kidding, I am not surprised at all :) Therefore my point stands - If we look at the cheapest option it will be very expensive for average player.
k) That way you get two birds with one stone - people get destroyed (proven by CCP as a major factor in retention rate), low sec becomes more active, people organize themselves as pirate hunters etc etc. Much more addition to content than TSP :)
m) There is one main reason for people who purchase plex from ccp - they want isk without investing time. Vice versa for those who purchase plex from the market - they give their time investment to earn that isk in exchange for "cash" ie subscription. So far, those who were purchasing plexes for subscription were key demand factor for plexes, now there is going to be more demand. Do you think rise in plex prices will hit those who subscribe that way as well? I am quite sure it will
n) So we can agree that it actually works for only small part of their intention? Ie they are implementing something which has some benefits for some minorities without taking in consideration the majority of player base? Especially after so much negative feedback on it? If I had a multimilion usd/eur business I would be way more careful with such decisions.

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#6085 - 2015-12-07 22:43:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Don ZOLA
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Don ZOLA wrote:
Speaking from experience I`d say Roll

And yes, it is, the journey of thousand miles starts with a step. Well guess what, this is not even first step in this direction.
Ok, so basically you just described a slippery slope fallacy and tried to make it sound like the right way to make a point.

Also I've been painfully direct in my responses to you, that you would suggest I have a problem with deflection is laughable.


It could be called slippery slope fallacy if ccp/eve were doing great and improving in all aspects. Since it is almost the quite opposite and as someone who is here from the very start and who can witness all those steps I can easily state that I do not like the direction. Counter strike was a sarcasm and I even wrote it, eve will die before it makes it to there, but direction is already taken whether you like it or not.

Edit: And you are deflecting most of the arguments in different manners,just not with the counter arguments (see out of game demand Lol)

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6086 - 2015-12-07 22:44:24 UTC
Berrice Silf wrote:
Im not disagreeing with anything you stated above, What im trying to get you to see is however bizarre it may seem if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.
To be blunt, while high SP is taken as a manner of bragging rights, it's only a measure of tenure and literally just a function thereof. While I do think there's nothing wrong with games rewarding tenure, even with exclusive types of progression, I'm not sure I can be convinced such a status is worthy of specific recognition beyond that.

I could easily be convinced that for those who find EB important that the time only trained characters be able to be told apart from those who used TSP and further keeping those ranks defined accordingly.

But beyond that I'm forced to bear in mind the investment of thousands of TSP from billions of extracted SP for a single character is a proposition bordering on the absurd. While definitely possible assuming SP availability, it's not a reality I would count on.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6087 - 2015-12-07 22:45:42 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Berrice Silf wrote:

Im not disagreeing with anything you stated above, What im trying to get you to see is however bizarre it may seem if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.

Should we care about minority of that top list? Don is one of them and he doesn't care about others minorities so why we should care if he doesn't?
"The king is dead, long live the king!"

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Berrice Silf
Academy of the Imperial Guards
#6088 - 2015-12-07 22:58:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Berrice Silf wrote:
Im not disagreeing with anything you stated above, What im trying to get you to see is however bizarre it may seem if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.
To be blunt, while high SP is taken as a manner of bragging rights, it's only a measure of tenure and literally just a function thereof. While I do think there's nothing wrong with games rewarding tenure, even with exclusive types of progression, I'm not sure I can be convinced such a status is worthy of specific recognition beyond that.

I could easily be convinced that for those who find EB important that the time only trained characters be able to be told apart from those who used TSP and further keeping those ranks defined accordingly.

But beyond that I'm forced to bear in mind the investment of thousands of TSP from billions of extracted SP for a single character is a proposition bordering on the absurd. While definitely possible assuming SP availability, it's not a reality I would count on.

Like i said initially though, however illogical it may seem it becomes a reality with a TSP. The investment of money in EVE will give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time. Blink
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6089 - 2015-12-07 23:01:33 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Berrice Silf wrote:

Like i said initially though, however illogical it may seem it becomes a reality with a TSP. The investment of money in EVE will give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time. Blink

It will be compensated by gaining fair advantage through playing time.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#6090 - 2015-12-07 23:09:56 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Not saying they are, just that your posting here does give me some ideas about your reasoning as a whole, but leaves a few questions unanswered. I don't think those answers will have much meaning given what you've provided though.

But you have a post history same as everyone else' and could easily resolve this. You keep talking up these posts but won't present them .That you don't is pretty telling.


Pardon me being stubborn then. As I stated, I believe you are fighting this "forum war" for your own personal gain and as cuh opponent I have no intention to make anything easier for you. Especially since even if you agree to everything I said it does not change anything for you, game or me. Ie this change is done deal. I`ve got myself baited on some of your posts regarding that list or some bs like "we already have this" and started replying it because I got carried away. Now I have to explain you the wrongs in the list or it will be a huge waste of time. If I manage to do it at least someone learned something, all good.

Regarding my post history, feel free to use it, it is public :)

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Yet shallow classifications are the lens you've been using to view me for a while now. I genuinely wonder if you're capable of viewing me as an individual capable of individual thought and conclusion instead of the agenda you've constructed and spent so much time trying to mold me into.


Unfortunately, I doubt I will change my opinion about you. Your way of posting and going through this discussion tells me I am right. You are individual capable of individual though and conclusion, just biased in direction of personal gain and dedicated to not "lose forum war by any means necessary". Maybe I am wrong, but that is my burden to carry :)

[quote]So you are posting because you believe it is beneficial, yet you cannot make any argument why it is beneficial to eve player base instead of minority plus you do not even want to read side effects mentioned by others. I totally trust you Lol

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I made a list of them, you just keep marginalizing it or worse wholly misrepresenting parts of the argument.

As far as reading side effect, go ahead and post them. I've responded to many on that very subject beyond even this thread. That you want me to feel obligated to you specifically to seek out your thoughts on the matter isn't a feeling I share. If you want me to respond, post it.

1) Don't care if you do or don't, mainly because, again, I'm led to believe you aren't actually trying to understand the person here anymore, but rather use the
2) The larger portion of the player base will have this as mere background noise. A feature with little use and not much point in investing in as a seller. That's because we're largely years old vets. But if the claim is, as it seems to be here, that this dynamic is not helpful or beneficial to that large population that it isn't to those that could and would use it then I can't help but feel that my earlier analysis of your myopic viewpoint is further justified.You're basically saying "no matter how much it could help this group, since each benefit doesn't effect everyone none of it matters."
3) I could, but the most important thing to bear in mind is that one of our positions is defensible simply by sticking to the topic, where the other feels the need to play the "for your benefit" card when trying to make any argument. On top of that, to the best of your knowledge I could just as well not be lying. But for some reason that possibility is easy for you to ignore. Convenience maybe?


I do not keep marginalizing it, I am providing you arguments what and why is wrong there. For some points I have agreed, would I do it if I had agenda of dissing you or "winning a forum war"?

1. How can I understand a person who keeps twisting out arguments or digressing when pointed his fallacy? You are not posting for understanding but for "win"
2. As I said numerous times, I do not have a problem with something being beneficial to a minor group. There was a tons of such changes in past, there will be in future as well. Difference is, their side effects could not affect other, more serious issues. And we have potentially serious side effects here.
3. Yes, but topic was not about my impression of you or vice versa :) In theory yes, you could be telling the truth as well. But seeing how fiercely you do not want to admit you are wrong for any single point, even for obviously wrong ones I tend to believe you will rather lie than admit being wrong. That completes my impression that you are fighting this forum war for your personal cause.

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6091 - 2015-12-07 23:15:58 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:
Snip
a) I see no issue with denying being wrong when I'm not wrong. You just provided evidence that wallet values aren't static, which suggests earnings potentials aren't static. You failed to present evidence suggesting they are. Rather you only provided snapshots giving an average of the realized earnings. Beyond that the logic you're moving into is fundamentally flawed because even if earning isk has a set cost, so long as the added return outstrips those costs you've succeeded in increasing your isk earning. And learning how to maximize return and minimize risk will contribute to that. That's simple fact. One doesn't need a crusade to make that apparent, though some seem willing to wage one to pretend that's not the case/
b) Now: If a player wants to advance faster than passive training will allow while keeping their identity, they can't. If this goes through: If a player wants to advance faster than passive training will allow while keeping their identity, they can. How terribly simple is that?
e) I'm wondering if you have any consistent internal logic at play here. You just went into a whole tirade on point a) about how non-trivial you saw increasing isk supply, but explain the triviality of it here. Further, giving raw isk doesn't actually meet the idea of "mitigating traditional risks" and further makes assumptions of this new player and their understanding of markets in general and Eve's markets in particular.
g) Where do PLEX come from? Where is there origin? Oh right, out of game purchase from CCP for real money. The single point of sale that determines the whole of the supply available in game. And why do people make that out of game purchase? Because they want isk in game. So yes, isk drives out of game demand for PLEX, as opposed to in game demand which is driven by need for game time or other services.
h) Well yeah you're not surprised, because you're still looking at a snapshot with a system not in play then making it a comparison to when it is in play and not accommodating further direct and indirect growth. I mean sure, if you assume the quantity is roughtly static then ignore people who tell you it isn't that's the closed minded solution you get.
k) Again, not disagreeing.
m)PLEX already serve plenty of additional functions which have considerable demand. Given the rate at which this function actually consumes PLEX is unknown but is likely to introduce PLEX for the very reason you state people buy that we're looking at a speculation either way
n) It works for everyone intended for that point, but it was never claimed that that was the majority of players. Same a b). Maybe the issue here is that you think I'm saying something is true for the entire user base. I'm not on either, I'm just saying the affected parts of the user base aren't worth ignoring small as they may be.

Regarding the majority, that's tricky because as we've seen here those "loyal" customers are prone to kneejerk threats that try to hold the developers hostage. At some point the development by committee will fail and those same players will have no one but themselves to blame despite still pointing at the developers.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6092 - 2015-12-07 23:17:21 UTC
Berrice Silf wrote:

Like i said initially though, however illogical it may seem it becomes a reality with a TSP. The investment of money in EVE will give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time. Blink
And as I stated before that, It's a non issue since it's not really a competition. It a list of "people who got here first".
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6093 - 2015-12-07 23:34:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Don ZOLA wrote:
Pardon me being stubborn then. As I stated, I believe you are fighting this "forum war" for your own personal gain and as cuh opponent I have no intention to make anything easier for you. Especially since even if you agree to everything I said it does not change anything for you, game or me. Ie this change is done deal. I`ve got myself baited on some of your posts regarding that list or some bs like "we already have this" and started replying it because I got carried away. Now I have to explain you the wrongs in the list or it will be a huge waste of time. If I manage to do it at least someone learned something, all good.

Regarding my post history, feel free to use it, it is public :)
As stated before, if you want me to respond top something, present it. And no, I haven't been agreeing with a lot of what you state. Maybe it's the way in which you are stating it, but every time I start a section of a post with the word "No" it should be a direct indication that I believe your position to be incorrect.

Don ZOLA wrote:
Unfortunately, I doubt I will change my opinion about you. Your way of posting and going through this discussion tells me I am right. You are individual capable of individual though and conclusion, just biased in direction of personal gain and dedicated to not "lose forum war by any means necessary". Maybe I am wrong, but that is my burden to carry :)
It's a non-factor. It doesn't actually detract from anything I've said but does cloud your counterpoints due to being more about what you think of me than the topic, so it may be in your interest to reconsider what's coming across.

Quote:
So you are posting because you believe it is beneficial, yet you cannot make any argument why it is beneficial to eve player base instead of minority plus you do not even want to read side effects mentioned by others. I totally trust you Lol
Considering a list of benefits exists, that minority some of the parts focus on are the focus of the change and only a small portion of the list was directed at them specifically yes, I've done as you requested. Shall I repost it for you?

Quote:
I do not keep marginalizing it, I am providing you arguments what and why is wrong there. For some points I have agreed, would I do it if I had agenda of dissing you or "winning a forum war"?

1. How can I understand a person who keeps twisting out arguments or digressing when pointed his fallacy? You are not posting for understanding but for "win"
2. As I said numerous times, I do not have a problem with something being beneficial to a minor group. There was a tons of such changes in past, there will be in future as well. Difference is, their side effects could not affect other, more serious issues. And we have potentially serious side effects here.
3. Yes, but topic was not about my impression of you or vice versa :) In theory yes, you could be telling the truth as well. But seeing how fiercely you do not want to admit you are wrong for any single point, even for obviously wrong ones I tend to believe you will rather lie than admit being wrong. That completes my impression that you are fighting this forum war for your personal cause.
Yes you so. "If it's not for the majority it doesn't count" is a familiar theme. "If it's a small subset it's not a benefit" is an argument you just made in this same post. That's marginalization.

1) The only reason you see it as twisting is because you're inserting that unhealthy bias. I've been very consistent.
2) Yet one of your counter point is consistently "you cannot make any argument why it is beneficial to eve player base instead of minority" when the change it designed to benefit that minority specifically. And as has been stated prior, for everyone it still allows for greater control over skills via the ability to remove them than anything current with the complete lack of alternatives, which is something I've brought up in the past as well, and am willing to restate.
3) So funny thing here, some guy who's doing the exact same things as me (point by point prolonged counterargument) in an online forum says that because I argue means my position can't be trusted, but he gets to do the same without question. How does that work while maintaining intellectual honesty?
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6094 - 2015-12-07 23:42:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rat Scout
Berrice Silf wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Berrice Silf wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Berrice Silf wrote:
Your missing my point, even if its just by a single person for whom money is no object, because he could do it. Then imagine Eveboard with the same name at the top of all the lists. Its not logical but highly possible and when the TSP goes live even doable.

I did actually mean to put also in my previous post that once a player got to 50m the skill packages would cease to deliver any return.

@Rat scout : Your intellectual input is about 5 higher on the IQ scale than general lootit at least Tyberius uses his brain before typing and offers a proper discussion.
So instead of viewing SP for it's functional utility we're now looking at it as a contest and further, a contest which is entirely predetermined in it's results since there's no way to change the order of who got here first?

That's a hard to swallow justification.

Ive had a few discussions over different aspects but however hard it is to swallow over the money vs time invested quote it becomes reality with the TSP in its current incarnation. However illogical it maybe and in a different league to me you don't know who is behind any pilot and what there finances allow them to do.

If i was in any of those lists and became superseded by cash injected pilot the game would be over.

Time is invested either way, that some people may soon be able to trade theirs doesn't make it any less the investment of time. And the investment of cash can still only buy SP in the form of a sub directly. Otherwise it can only be used to buy someones actually invested in game time (vs just buying the sub and not investing time in gameplay).

So we have some conveniently ignored facts:
1) Cash for SP is the mechanic in play now via subs
2) All this does is allow that SP to be shuffled
3) Access purchased is not time invested
4) PLEX already relocates actual time investment

Combine these and we see that whatever metric you're using to measure Hilmar's words is either flawed or was wrong well before he ever stated it.

Im not disagreeing with anything you stated above, What im trying to get you to see is however bizarre it may seem if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.


And so you are suggesting to scrap the TSP feature because of a top 10 list? I can't possibly imagine CCP looking at this as an issue, unless they really don't want to have a little more income.
What income you ask?

Here let's run some numbers:

Bazaar purchase of 20m SP pilot -> 2 plex to CCP -> 36$ +/-

TSP packets used to inject 20m SP -> range of 5-8 PLEX (sorry, marginal error not optimal) ->140-160$, depends on deals used to purchase

Do you really think CCP will scrap TSP based on your feedback regarding top boards on a third party site?


edit: This is what I would call destructive entitlement, all the back and forth between the few people posting is because of this hidden agenda behind the opposition, it's not clear in most of the cases why they think it's a bad feature, but when we do get an honest answer it is blatantly ridiculous.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#6095 - 2015-12-07 23:58:32 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Regarding the majority, that's tricky because as we've seen here those "loyal" customers are prone to kneejerk threats that try to hold the developers hostage. At some point the development by committee will fail and those same players will have no one but themselves to blame despite still pointing at the developers.


a) So you are denying official data and my question regarding the scenario you are suggesting. If average wallet does not mean anything to be taken in consideration, how come in the last 3 years there were no booms of earnings when new things were implemented? If your imagined scenario was true, we would see significant growth of peoples income whenever some new interesting stuff is added. Yet we lack those.. Care to explain or admit your scenario is not vaild, ie you are wrong?
b) You can keep identity now, that is why one character is main, others are alts regardless of sp. So what exactly is going to be changed there? Plus you are not forced to purchase alt, it is your choice. Therefore you already have the same "benefit" now, some use it, some dont You are wrong again.
e) Please do not digress, either answer my question or admit you are wrong. Your own words are that guides for earning isk are available for everyone, so new players as well. Therefore if provided starting capital they could use guides and make much more isk which will benefit both them and growth. Why no one trusts new players with hundreds of millions and why would that be different in the future?
g) Out of game demand is another way of your digression. In my explanation I have called it supply, quite easy to understand. Naming it out of game demand does not change a single fact I have mentioned. Therefore demand for plex ingame increases it price. Supply follows demand to certain point, ie stretches a bit, after that supply cannot fulfill demand and therefore prices go up even more. At the moment there is still enough supply as you can buy plexes anytime you wish, what will happen when demand increases?
h) Regardless of me being surprised or not, another shallow attempt at digressing. Can you please answer my question or admit you are wrong? If we look at the cheapest option it will be very expensive for average player - simple yes is enough. No demands explanation, not digression
m) Key demand is for subscriptions but regardless of that does implementing one more demand increases or lowers total demand? If total demand is increased will it increase prices? Do you think rise in plex prices will hit those who subscribe that way as well?
n) As mentioned, if there was no side effects there would not be a problem and we would not have this thread with 300 pages. If there is a potential side effect to lose more than to gain you would choose to go for it? Ie you are putting a gain for small base while changing game fundamentals for whole player base. Even more you are making your own customers to question relation customer - service provider due to your sudden inconsistency. What message are you sending to your remaining and potentially new customers?

CCP does not take its loyal customers in consideration for a while. Loyal customers pointed fozzy sov issues etc. And it kind of looks like they were totally right. Loyal customers have helped this game reach its heights. Loyal customers are here all the time, developers are changing since their idea after idea fails. It would actually be great if CCP listened to the loyal customers instead of doing what they do. Ask top10 sp guys on EB what they got for their years of loyalty? Ability that someone overtakes them by simply investing cash. So your point is void and aimed just as attack on me, implying i am kneejerker (or one of them).

Good night now, please either start admitting you are wrong or provide reasonable explanations for not being wrong. No point in digressing anymore.
Thanks in advance.

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6096 - 2015-12-08 00:30:04 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:

a) What data have you provided suggesting people are at the peak of their earning potential? You provided data, which I haven't denied, about current wallet values, but that doesn't address my claim, which is that people can learn to make more isk. Further you suggest a 75% increase constitutes no "booms in earning" despite no strong compulsions for people to hoard more isk. That seems contrary to your own evidence.
b) No one said you couldn't, though the scanario provided pretty much answered you scenario before yo asked it: You wanted to advance your main. And there are plenty of reasons to do so, such as wanting your mains actions and abilities to speak for that character. Additionally no one said you were forced to do anything, that's all coming from you adding conditions that were never part of the claim to deny to make it look like you're refuting something.
e) Read the whole thing next time. Particilarly "Further, giving raw isk doesn't actually meet the idea of "mitigating traditional risks" and further makes assumptions of this new player and their understanding of markets in general and Eve's markets in particular." but further than that you've moved so far off the original mark with this question the answer aren't even relevant to the original listed benefit as they can neither add to or detract from them
g) So basically because you use a different term it's "digression?" We'll leave that aside as it literally has no meaning to the topic. To answer you question, why would anything different happen than has happened over the history of the game, or do you not believe a significant increase in PLEX demand has happened compared with what you believe this would cause?
h) No, the last time you provided an actual answer on your part you used earning and PLEX as having the same rate of increase by saying "they all go up" without justification. Yeah, they'll all move, but you never justified the expectation that it's all at the same rate, hence the retort you're viewing to many things as statics. It still stands.
m) Obviously it increases demand, no ones arguing it doesn't What's being argued is that at the same time it increases supply. That's why I speculated the way I did.
n) Feel free to present these side effects. To the question, this is where we see things fundamentally differently. There is no change for the larger player base. The functions they've had before the will still have without exception. So that minority gains and the rest choosing to feel like they lost but not actually losing demonstrably isn't the best of points to base from.

Regarding CCP, if you feel that way maybe it's time for a new game.

Regarding your request to me, you're sorely mistaken if you think any mandate in your post has the power to dictate how I post. I've demonstrated how you are wrong, that you have some reason to do anything but admit it isn't something I need to change for. You can put that whole notion right back where you got it.

Thanks in advance for not pulling that again.
Don ZOLA
Omniscient Order
#6097 - 2015-12-08 00:31:38 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
As stated before, if you want me to respond top something, present it. And no, I haven't been agreeing with a lot of what you state. Maybe it's the way in which you are stating it, but every time I start a section of a post with the word "No" it should be a direct indication that I believe your position to be incorrect.


Ok, quick before I go to bed. I do not want to go even wider in discussion with you since it will just mean a lot of empty phrases and digression. Please focus on replying on the list with real explanations why you are not wrong (i do not count digressions as explanations)

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
It's a non-factor. It doesn't actually detract from anything I've said but does cloud your counterpoints due to being more about what you think of me than the topic, so it may be in your interest to reconsider what's coming across.


Exactly, what I think of you is non-factor. My counterpoints are there regardless of my opinion on you. And that is why I would like that you either admit where you are wrong or provide reasonable explanation as a counter argument.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Considering a list of benefits exists, that minority some of the parts focus on are the focus of the change and only a small portion of the list was directed at them specifically yes, I've done as you requested. Shall I repost it for you?


A list exists, where almost every single line is challenged by my counter arguments. When we come to some agreement and mutual understanding on them we can call it "benefit list". For now it is just a "battlefield" where you are trying to hide in the field trying to gain at least stalemate position :)

[quote]I do not keep marginalizing it, I am providing you arguments what and why is wrong there. For some points I have agreed, would I do it if I had agenda of dissing you or "winning a forum war"?

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
]Yes you so. "If it's not for the majority it doesn't count" is a familiar theme. "If it's a small subset it's not a benefit" is an argument you just made in this same post. That's marginalization.

1) The only reason you see it as twisting is because you're inserting that unhealthy bias. I've been very consistent.
2) Yet one of your counter point is consistently "you cannot make any argument why it is beneficial to eve player base instead of minority" when the change it designed to benefit that minority specifically. And as has been stated prior, for everyone it still allows for greater control over skills via the ability to remove them than anything current with the complete lack of alternatives, which is something I've brought up in the past as well, and am willing to restate.
3) So funny thing here, some guy who's doing the exact same things as me (point by point prolonged counterargument) in an online forum says that because I argue means my position can't be trusted, but he gets to do the same without question. How does that work while maintaining intellectual honesty?


No, if you actually wanted to quote me properly it would be "benefit for minority but too much side effects to go for it". Instead you have your own pattern where you just want to "win" so you will twist it as suitable.

1. Very consistent in not admitting when you are wrong, very consistent in digression as well. Agreed. I am not inserting anything, your posting for previous 300 pages is publicly visible.
2. Yea, let`s pretend side effects do not exist and that we have 300 pages of people praising this change. If CCP wanted alternatives they would communicate with us. And there were alternatives suggested. Not by me though as I do not appreciate one way communication with CCP. If they want me to do their job for free, I will do it because I love the game, but that demands two way communication
3. You have a wrong impression that your digressions are taken as counter arguments. So far, I have simplified counter arguments a lot, really looking forward how will you twist them. I improve my English by translating your empty phrases :)
The problem with your posting is that when you are presented argument "this wall is white, yes or no?" you will start speaking about the guy who painted it. While my points are based on official data, statistics, economy, market laws, you still try to twist them out and call them speculations in order to make them look null. And that is not honest approach to discussion so I really do not think you have any right to preach about any kind of intellectual honesty.

But please, let`s not waste time on these subjects, we have a list to come up with some conclusions and this is totally irrelevant to it or to topic. My opinion of you or vice versa, whether positive or negative will not change anything, in this topic, forum, game, universe. After that I suggest we stop wasting each others time as due to our different motivation we will never be able to come to mutual understanding.

Good night for real now :)

There are 2 rules in a successful life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#6098 - 2015-12-08 00:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Time to interesting statistic: Don wrote 19 "wrongs" on this page.

Don ZOLA wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

Regarding the majority, that's tricky because as we've seen here those "loyal" customers are prone to kneejerk threats that try to hold the developers hostage. At some point the development by committee will fail and those same players will have no one but themselves to blame despite still pointing at the developers.


a) So you are denying official data and my question regarding the scenario you are suggesting. If average wallet does not mean anything to be taken in consideration, how come in the last 3 years there were no booms of earnings when new things were implemented? If your imagined scenario was true, we would see significant growth of peoples income whenever some new interesting stuff is added. Yet we lack those.. Care to explain or admit your scenario is not vaild, ie you are wrong?
b) You can keep identity now, that is why one character is main, others are alts regardless of sp. So what exactly is going to be changed there? Plus you are not forced to purchase alt, it is your choice. Therefore you already have the same "benefit" now, some use it, some dont You are wrong again.
e) Please do not digress, either answer my question or admit you are wrong. Your own words are that guides for earning isk are available for everyone, so new players as well. Therefore if provided starting capital they could use guides and make much more isk which will benefit both them and growth. Why no one trusts new players with hundreds of millions and why would that be different in the future?
g) Out of game demand is another way of your digression. In my explanation I have called it supply, quite easy to understand. Naming it out of game demand does not change a single fact I have mentioned. Therefore demand for plex ingame increases it price. Supply follows demand to certain point, ie stretches a bit, after that supply cannot fulfill demand and therefore prices go up even more. At the moment there is still enough supply as you can buy plexes anytime you wish, what will happen when demand increases?
h) Regardless of me being surprised or not, another shallow attempt at digressing. Can you please answer my question or admit you are wrong? If we look at the cheapest option it will be very expensive for average player - simple yes is enough. No demands explanation, not digression
m) Key demand is for subscriptions but regardless of that does implementing one more demand increases or lowers total demand? If total demand is increased will it increase prices? Do you think rise in plex prices will hit those who subscribe that way as well?
n) As mentioned, if there was no side effects there would not be a problem and we would not have this thread with 300 pages. If there is a potential side effect to lose more than to gain you would choose to go for it? Ie you are putting a gain for small base while changing game fundamentals for whole player base. Even more you are making your own customers to question relation customer - service provider due to your sudden inconsistency. What message are you sending to your remaining and potentially new customers?

CCP does not take its loyal customers in consideration for a while. Loyal customers pointed fozzy sov issues etc. And it kind of looks like they were totally right. Loyal customers have helped this game reach its heights. Loyal customers are here all the time, developers are changing since their idea after idea fails. It would actually be great if CCP listened to the loyal customers instead of doing what they do. Ask top10 sp guys on EB what they got for their years of loyalty? Ability that someone overtakes them by simply investing cash. So your point is void and aimed just as attack on me, implying i am kneejerker (or one of them).

Good night now, please either start admitting you are wrong or provide reasonable explanations for not being wrong. No point in digressing anymore.
Thanks in advance.

Seems it's "his own crusade" for "winning a forum war" and goal is to force Tyberius Franklin to admit that he was wrong.

Don, we will find out who was wrong after TSP become released. Just cool down. Blink

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#6099 - 2015-12-08 01:06:21 UTC
Don ZOLA wrote:
]Ok, quick before I go to bed. I do not want to go even wider in discussion with you since it will just mean a lot of empty phrases and digression. Please focus on replying on the list with real explanations why you are not wrong (i do not count digressions as explanations)
They've been consistently provided despite your continued misuse of information and deflecting. But we get back to the same thing, if it's not something you agree with it doesn't count.

Quote:
Exactly, what I think of you is non-factor. My counterpoints are there regardless of my opinion on you. And that is why I would like that you either admit where you are wrong or provide reasonable explanation as a counter argument.
Have done so multiple times. Rather what i'll give you yourself credit in doing is pushing this whole thing so far from the original list that the points bear little resemblance to their original stated benefits due to you picking


Quote:
A list exists, where almost every single line is challenged by my counter arguments. When we come to some agreement and mutual understanding on them we can call it "benefit list". For now it is just a "battlefield" where you are trying to hide in the field trying to gain at least stalemate position :)
Challenged by is not defeated. And really the only one you could be said as having defeated is the one noted as extremely speculative from the beginning. Beyond that you've tried half stringing together pieces of data to try to suit goals they never intended, IE: Using 2012 wallet values to invalidate the variable nature of isk earning, using 2015 wallet values to do the same despite noting the difference in the 2, and knowing that there was a difference, still trying to use the numbers as static comparisons for the if/when this goes live.

Then there's dismissing a point based on personal feelings.

Then there's the one that doesn't actually detract from the original point regardless of how your "objection" is answered.

Then there's the one where I used a different term and you took it like some moral victory

Then the one where you do the same things toy did in the first one

The one I admitted from the very beginning was very speculative

And the one that in itself is fine but "undefined abuse"

That's the list right now. That's not defeating them. That's deflecting to specific use cases under current mechanics with a hefty dose of pretending no economic adaptation can or will occur, and on top of which only becomes relevant in a situation where the feature is a must use, which it isn't.

Quote:
No, if you actually wanted to quote me properly it would be "benefit for minority but too much side effects to go for it". Instead you have your own pattern where you just want to "win" so you will twist it as suitable.

1. Very consistent in not admitting when you are wrong, very consistent in digression as well. Agreed. I am not inserting anything, your posting for previous 300 pages is publicly visible.
2. Yea, let`s pretend side effects do not exist and that we have 300 pages of people praising this change. If CCP wanted alternatives they would communicate with us. And there were alternatives suggested. Not by me though as I do not appreciate one way communication with CCP. If they want me to do their job for free, I will do it because I love the game, but that demands two way communication
3. You have a wrong impression that your digressions are taken as counter arguments. So far, I have simplified counter arguments a lot, really looking forward how will you twist them. I improve my English by translating your empty phrases :)
The problem with your posting is that when you are presented argument "this wall is white, yes or no?" you will start speaking about the guy who painted it. While my points are based on official data, statistics, economy, market laws, you still try to twist them out and call them speculations in order to make them look null. And that is not honest approach to discussion so I really do not think you have any right to preach about any kind of intellectual honesty.

But please, let`s not waste time on these subjects, we have a list to come up with some conclusions and this is totally irrelevant to it or to topic. My opinion of you or vice versa, whether positive or negative will not change anything, in this topic, forum, game, universe. After that I suggest we stop wasting each others time as due to our different motivation we will never be able to come to mutual understanding.

Good night for real now :)
And you've yet to present those supposed side effects.

1) We're back to the attacking the poster instead of the arguments I see, but above is where we stand on that
2) We don't have 300 pages of side effects. As we both know I've been in the thread for a while and it's largely emotional kneejerk early on. Not to say their aren't any con arguments worthy of note, but you aren't doing then justice. You aren't doing them at all. Of everyone I've spoken to on the con side you're the only one to post, "just go look at the thread."
3) I included a brief list above regarding some of your flimsy reasoning, marginalization, deflections, an attempt to dismiss a point based upon word use, misuse of data and poorly defined supporting problems. But do feel free to keep claiming that's not what you are doing.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#6100 - 2015-12-08 04:13:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Quote:
if the TSP goes live is that 13 years of training can be superseded by someone with enough financial clout to buy his way straight to the top of the ranking lists. I understand that any TSP injected has been trained in real time by someone but even the bazaar wont allow you near the top ranked people, you cannot take 3 x 100m skill point characters and combine into a 300 mill pilot . The TSP will if you have the money to throw at it.

Wow ranking lists.

Good thing alliances depend on K:D ratio and isk efficiency huh.


Rankling lists, though...

Ranking lists.

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 ?