Market Discussions

Original post: http://eve-search.com/thread/483009-1

This is an awesome idea. Getting Chribba was huge for it to come to fruition - giving it much needed reputation. It seems most of the details are worked out so there's not to much to discuss here, it will be very interesting to see how this goes.

Things have changed since the patch, lot of market hubs are available and they are uncontested (nobody bothers). This means competition and makes sure no single entity grabs the market so far. Which is good, and allows to show CCP that there will not be a player-run Jita 4-4 replacement with the in-game mechanics. Your project now tries to establish a monopoly and exploits out-of-game charity to get the competetive advantage. Why do you think this is a good move?

might be an unpopular opinion but anyone else feels like there is way to much charity stuff going on in eve?

this a video game, not a charity fund

If Chribba agrees to become CEO of every Highsec Citadel which sets itself up as a verified charitable organisation, then perhaps the playing field will become a level one - taxes and other details excepted. But of course, he will not do so.

This plan also hints at the possible threat of a stealth nerf to Highsec ganking. Carebears plying to and fro on PLEX business may well find themselves drawing the attention of the ganking community, as Sabriz Adoudel has pointed out. They will scream loudly that they have been ganked while on charitable business, and that CCP should protect them, in this particular instance.

Any corporation or alliance undertaking ganking activities in connection with Chribba's edifice risks the very real possibility of being wardecced by an uncontrollably large portion of the the EVE Playerbase, motivated by a real-life sense of moral superiority. Any idea of balance would be tossed out of the window.

It might also immediately and dangerously demonise the gankers. This is acceptable in the cut-and-thrust of current EVE Online play, but would stray perilously close to becoming a license to harass in the event of the moral majority gaining such a doomsday weapon.

I think CCP will need to consider very carefully the possible consequences of permitting such an endeavour. They may come back with some conditions which will make it more feasible.

I would just say to those who have misgivings about the enterprise; don't be afraid to voice your opposition. I can already see the Angels of EVE trying to put us on a guilt-trip if we so much as whisper against it.

Because I object to the current plan means neither that I would object to something more sensible nor that I am opposed to the giving of charity.

Except that 'what they want' can lead to all sorts of problems. Of course, you meant in-game, didn't you?

It's on Reddit, item 9 at the moment.

Using charity and chribba to get on top of the "Market Hub Trade Wars" .. This is worse than gamling sites.

I doubt Chribba is supporting this, and if he is its likely he has not been explained what the whole thing is about..

Also as a Charity how on earth are you going to potentially fund content/wars in game? Charities are supposed to be neutral..

and there is no way in Hell CCP are going to support or protect this project.. If they do I will eat my hat live on stream!

My view is that, if it cannot be scammed because it is PLEX4GOOD, then you do not need Chribba.

Anyone can set up a citadel, call it "All Profits to PLEX4GOOD" and they would not be able to scam with it. Why is yours special?

Say it is successful, and becomes the "new jita" (if we are buying into hysteria), then, people will be forced to donate whether they like it or not, as, good luck buying moon materials outside of 4-4 in any volume at the moment.

" We may indeed turn out to be a driver of conflict from one end of the cluster to another. If that's what you want, it's what we want."

Who is "you"? If all your profits are going to charity, how will you justify this? If someone offers to move their business to you and send hundreds of billions per month through you, in return for you "driving conflict" with whoever their current enemy is, will you say yes?

There are already plenty of ingame methods that people can use their isk for good with, whether that be the Angel Project, or Care4Kids. Your marketing implies that only through using your citadel will you be able to be one of the "good guys"

Further, your replies on reddit seem to be based on saying anyone who doesn't agree with you just does not want anyone to do any good in Eve, and, that you are a good person.

No one is questioning Chribbas integrity, no one cares if you are a good person or not, what is a major concern is, if it is so bad to have an active alliance owning a citadel, why is it any different regardless of who owns it?

He who pays the piper calls the tune and whatnot, and, you aim to be able to rival IWI in terms of availability of ISK.

"Charity wars" up next in eve?

There are some great points brought up in this thread. I agree that it is a little creepy to imagine a huge market hub branded under the banner of charity. Human nature would put doubt in the mind of would-be attackers that they might be doing something wrong IRL by assaulting a "charity". The social connotations are too thick to ignore. It brings too much real-life stuff into our fantasy space universe.

People can already use their IRL money to buy PLEX and donate them to PLEX4GOOD. We don't need an in-game, targetable structure for this type of charity. It might do some good in the immediate future to raise funds, but it could threaten the integrity of the game itself. Sacrifice your IRL monies for good causes, but don't sacrifice EVE. EVE is much harder to replace, and its community and unique qualities as they stand bring value to the world, too.

How come none of the people you've mentioned as being involved have confirmed their support yet?

The whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth, with the funds not going 100% to PLEX for Good, the risk that backhanders will be paid to friends or enemies, the potential to guilt trip people who attack the citadel and your claim that a single entity owning the trade hub to fund their wars is bad, unless the entity is you.