These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A review of player giveaways with CCP and third party sites

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#241 - 2013-09-26 22:21:40 UTC
Hey CCP, when can TheMittani.com start offering unique ships and Fanfest packages sponsored by CCP through their website and stream?

Oh, never, because they don't provide incentives for players to buy GTCs.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Bronco Platz
Doomheim
#242 - 2013-09-26 22:21:43 UTC
Abernie wrote:
Reading posts and tweets, initially CSM was completely out of the loop. And apparently now this new idea has been ran by CSM and been told that this is how it's going to be.


They are still out of loop. Seen nothing substantial of them.

And if this new deal is born by them,... No, this could simply be not true.

This signature is under NDA. Sorry.
Le Petite More
Doomheim
#243 - 2013-09-26 22:23:04 UTC
You have not fixed the issue, and once again everyone is telling you that blatant favoritism towards a player group is not the way to keep your business running. Promising further favoritism towards more groups in the future doesn't make it better. You have goons and TEST agreeing with each other: that is how badly you have screwed up. Now you toss us a dunce cap and tell us to sit in the corner. Please fix the real issue here instead of trying to distract us.
Abernie
Thoroughly Incompetent
#244 - 2013-09-26 22:26:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Abernie
Bronco Platz wrote:
Abernie wrote:
Reading posts and tweets, initially CSM was completely out of the loop. And apparently now this new idea has been ran by CSM and been told that this is how it's going to be.


They are still out of loop. Seen nothing substantial of them.

And if this new deal is born by them,... No, this could simply be not true.

Jester's Trek
Quote:
"I'm glad that CCP is listening to my and the rest of the CSM's significant concerns about this give-away and are adjusting their strategy. And I realize it's probably too late to abort the give-away. But this was and continues to be a bad move on CCP's part.

Just wanted to make my position on this clear, in case you were curious.

This is most of what I'm basing my assessment about the current situation on. Being initially not informed has been confirmed from other CSM as well.

Also I'm not saying this new situation is from CSM. I'm saying CCP probably went "Oh this is too much? Well we'll do this instead then. Thanks for your help." and proceeded to lock down the discussion and post the changes.
Red Templar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#245 - 2013-09-26 22:27:03 UTC
Bronco Platz wrote:
Abernie wrote:
Reading posts and tweets, initially CSM was completely out of the loop. And apparently now this new idea has been ran by CSM and been told that this is how it's going to be.


They are still out of loop. Seen nothing substantial of them.

And if this new deal is born by them,... No, this could simply be not true.

They are not in the loop and were not consulted.
At least that is what they said in their few posts on the issue.

[b]For Love. For Peace. For Honor.

For None of the Above.

For Pony![/b]
Euan Hislop
Doomheim
#246 - 2013-09-26 22:28:42 UTC
Only been in EVE for about 2 years and I know the significance of these items! That they were even considered to be Prizes is worrying.

Glad to see they have changed their mind!
KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#247 - 2013-09-26 22:30:00 UTC
Was this CCP's answer to dissipating the ToS Storm?
Abernie
Thoroughly Incompetent
#248 - 2013-09-26 22:30:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Abernie
Euan Hislop wrote:
Only been in EVE for about 2 years and I know the significance of these items! That they were even considered to be Prizes is worrying.

Glad to see they have changed their mind!


Korvin Reynolds wrote:
Well done CCP, you have restored my faith in you guys

Whom ever made this decision internally deserves a pat on the back


So you don't have an issue with CCP vouching for a 3rd party, claiming to have audited a few years worth of blinks and giving somerblink about a trillion isk? Oh. Or completely bypassing the CSM and "testing the waters" with this?

EDIT: grabbed a quote from below my post.
EDIT2: added the "skipped CMS" -bit.
Korvin Reynolds
We are not bad. Just unlucky
#249 - 2013-09-26 22:30:49 UTC
Well done CCP, you have restored my faith in you guys

Whom ever made this decision internally deserves a pat on the back
Le Petite More
Doomheim
#250 - 2013-09-26 22:36:39 UTC
Korvin Reynolds wrote:
Well done CCP, you have restored my faith in you guys

Whom ever made this decision internally deserves a pat on the back


Now take your bone and keep paying them money while Somer RMT's his isk to build a bed of dollars. CCP even my cat knew to **** in her litter box and not my sandbox.
Kirren D'marr
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#251 - 2013-09-26 22:37:45 UTC
Boom Boom Longtime wrote:
I'd just love CCP to clarify on how this is a "community event", when clearly some aspects of the community are excluded from participating based on the enforcement of self appointed rules by a 3rd party entity not regulated by CCP per se.

This entity is governed by the same EULA as we all have to adhere to, sure.

In this instance however, CCP has effectively given another player / entity / website (effectively an out of game tool) the ability to dictate / choose whether i, as a paying eve customer can participate in content CCP has created (in game), or not.

I'd specifically like clarification on if this is meant to be a community event accessible to all paying subscribers who comply with the EULA - why i am currently unable to participate even if i wanted to as this character ?

Why am i being discriminated against?


Especially in light of recent events where CCP representatives had to pull out of player-run RP chat channels due to some players being excluded by the actions of other players, this whole situation of letting a player-run third party regulate who can participate in this lottery appears highly hypocritical.

Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.     _ - Kina Ayami_
Whim Aqayn
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#252 - 2013-09-26 22:37:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Whim Aqayn
I'd like to point out that it's great to see a response like this from CCP. Props for listening and reacting so quickly.


While the reuse of unique ships definitely was an issue, it seems you have failed to address the second point - the transfer of tremendous ingame assets to a third party. EVE is a sandbox and we, the players, want to keep it that way no matter the cost.

By interfering with the sandbox like this you are breaching a dangerous barrier which might create a precedent for the future. The culprit here is that it's not certain what will happen with the goods in the hands of the third party. For what we know, and like you have pointed out yourself, they might simply keep it to themselves. And while this certainly wouldn't break the game it is an infringement on the sandbox that we don't want to become the rule.

You mentioned that you're testing the waters with this campaign and as such I feel it is imperative that I point this out. We simply want you to guarantee that the third party does not make a profit from this. The publicity they get will be quite sufficient to compensate them for any time they spend, but please don't also compromise the integrity of the game.
Jane Schereau
#253 - 2013-09-26 22:42:09 UTC
CCP Navigator, you guys have missed the point. Yes, we don't like the old ships coming back; glad you fixed that. You seem to think it is OK to give somer assets worth trillions of ISK. Just like that. On their word that they'll give them out. Even if they do, they are pure profit to them. This is unacceptable behavior, for CCP to choose one player entity over another. You've done that before; the fact that this time you announce you are going to do it does not make it OK.

I must express my dissatisfaction with CCP. Yes, rubicon looks like it will be awesome. Good on you. But it seems you fellas don't understand the severity of what you are trying to do here.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#254 - 2013-09-26 22:44:18 UTC
Only way you're gonna make CCP really pay attention is by cancelling accounts. It worked with Incarnage, I am sure it would work again.
Alt Two
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
#255 - 2013-09-26 22:45:53 UTC
The way I see it CCP has two options here
1) Cancel the giveaway and reverse every single isk transaction made to SOMER since it was announced.
or
2) Give every single player the equivalent of what SOMER will make in profit from this.

That's the only thing that will make me resub my accounts.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#256 - 2013-09-26 22:46:46 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
I wonder if it's any coincidence that the third party CCP employees are stating have been absolutely truthful and legitimate in every single transaction they've ever made, and who they are going to hand trillions of isk in unique rare ships to, is the third party that promotes purchasing of GTCs (of which the third party themselves gain real world money from)

Also, how do CCP deal with the fact that SOMER ban/disallow certain accounts/players at their discretion?
Elria Antollare
Black Eclipse Corp
#257 - 2013-09-26 22:49:07 UTC
Nanatoa wrote:
Elria Antollare wrote:
This is unacceptable and it diminishes the history of EVE and a few very specific ships that have been repeatedly been said to NEVER be re-introduced ever again.


Thanks for jumping on the bandwagon, but you've jumped on the wrong one. The one you wanted has already crashed and burned.

re-read, still unacceptable and still a bad idea.
Alt Two
Caldari Capital Construction Inc.
#258 - 2013-09-26 22:49:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Alt Two
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I wonder if it's any coincidence that the third party CCP are handing trillions of isk of unique, limited edition ships to, and are officially stating as CCP employees that the third party has been truthful and legitimate in every single transaction they've ever made in the game thus far, is the third party that promotes purchasing of GTCs (of which the third party themselves gain real world money from)

Of course it's not a coincidence. This is CCP sponsored RMT.
You buy a GTC through blink, they get a kickback of real money for it, you get in-game items (if you win a blink)
Lulu McMullin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2013-09-26 22:54:12 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I wonder if it's any coincidence that the third party CCP are handing trillions of isk of unique, limited edition ships to, and are officially stating as CCP employees that the third party has been truthful and legitimate in every single transaction they've ever made in the game thus far, is the third party that promotes purchasing of GTCs (of which the third party themselves gain real world money from)


I hope you're right. The alternative is that CCP is simply growing ignorant to what a sandbox really is. If it's the latter, I'm better off forgetting CCP and Eve exist.
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#260 - 2013-09-26 22:59:32 UTC
Thanks to all bittervet RP lore loving players who missed the actualy point, we now have this pitiful solution.

The point is not introducing back the ships, the point is the use of Blink to do it.

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.