These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP Shills on the CSM

First post First post
Author
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#241 - 2013-10-07 21:58:53 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Minus the ability to produce them you mean.

The only thing determined by the lack of production is that the ship will have an increased price compared to it's normal counterpart. The extent of the price increase is a function of how many people want it and what amount of isk they are willing to throw at it. CCP has no control over the latter 2 factors.

throwing an additional 30 into the sandbox secretly, while everyone else believes there are only around 90, is something that was only in CCP's control. naturally, the increase in supply would drop the price per unit, so CCP devalued the item for everyone else when they did this. somer understood, that's why they had their employees selling them quietly, for ~6 weeks.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2013-10-07 22:04:22 UTC
Money Makin Mitch wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Money Makin Mitch wrote:

people were paying that much because they thought there were a fixed number available.

noone knew about the extra 33% supply that CCP magic'ed out of thin air for somer

cause somer told everyone to keep it a secret so that they could maximize their profits Roll

That makes the issue the lack of transparency and a continuation of the issue of the re-release of items understood to be unique (whether CCP intended/stated or not). The gifting of the ships themselves becomes a non-issue for that reasoning.


the gifting is still very much an issue. the devs should not be giving in-game assets to anybody, especially 'just because', which is essentially what this was. the lack of transparency and insider trading just makes it even worse. and yes, this was basically an isk injection... why else would you give 30 of a 'limited' ship on the downlow to a group if not for them to sell them? somer seems to have understood this perfectly, hence asking for the sales to be done slowly and quietly.

CCP has the ability to create criteria for giving the ship away at will. That much we know. The exact specifics of those criteria I'd wager we do not, thus saying they gave it out "just because" is speculative at best. I'd also like to point you to the alliance tournament which gives out ships according to an arbitrary ruleset created and modified by CCP at will.

Your conclusions on the reasonings is speculative as well. If I owned something of as significant a level of scarcity I'd not want much publicity about it as well. And that has to do with my intent to keep the item, not sell it. I can't individually be pursued for something no one knows I have.

Also, this was not isk injection. The only way it can become isk injection is to destroy the ships, making the majority of their perceived value unrecoverable.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2013-10-07 22:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Money Makin Mitch wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Minus the ability to produce them you mean.

The only thing determined by the lack of production is that the ship will have an increased price compared to it's normal counterpart. The extent of the price increase is a function of how many people want it and what amount of isk they are willing to throw at it. CCP has no control over the latter 2 factors.

throwing an additional 30 into the sandbox secretly, while everyone else believes there are only around 90, is something that was only in CCP's control. naturally, the increase in supply would drop the price per unit, so CCP devalued the item for everyone else when they did this. somer understood, that's why they had their employees selling them quietly, for ~6 weeks.

That isn't necessarily true. I doubt there would be a terribly significant price difference between 90 and 120 units in existence.

Edit: In actuality, I'd expect the drama from the revelation, and it's resulting reminder that the ships are still being issued for various purposes is having a far greater effect on the value than the actual increase in number in game.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#244 - 2013-10-07 22:16:55 UTC
I must say I regret voting for Malcanis as my #2 or #3 candidate (can't remember which) in the CSM election and will not make that mistake again.

I voted for him thinking he represented promoting conflict in EVE, not promoting GM-player collusion.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#245 - 2013-10-07 22:34:21 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The exact specifics of those criteria I'd wager we do not, thus saying they gave it out "just because" is speculative at best.
It's true that we don't know the criteria, but any criteria which result in ingame competitive for-profit organizations getting handed significant ingame valuables are bantha poodoo.

Quote:
I'd also like to point you to the alliance tournament which gives out ships according to an arbitrary ruleset created and modified by CCP at will.
I don't know why the AT is used so often as a comparison, it doesn't fit at all. The ruleset of the AT is created in advance and it's open to everyone. It's not fundamentally different from e.g. mission running or almost any other activity in the game. The significant difference to the giveaways we're discussing here is that CCP doesn't pick the winner.

Quote:
Also, this was not isk injection. The only way it can become isk injection is to destroy the ships, making the majority of their perceived value unrecoverable.
Please don't nitpick on words, items and ISK are interchangeable. Somer had the chance to sell the ships for ISK, they even could sell them for inflated prices for almost 2 months cause nobody except them knew that there were more of the ships.

Quote:
I doubt there would be a terribly significant price difference between 90 and 120 units in existence.
Your doubt is purely speculative.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2013-10-07 23:00:51 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:
It's true that we don't know the criteria, but any criteria which result in ingame competitive for-profit organizations getting handed significant ingame valuables are bantha poodoo.
I won't pretend to agree with the decision from a standpoint of who is the most deserving. That said CCP's ability to provide assets on their terms does exist and will continue to exist.

Quote:
I don't know why the AT is used so often as a comparison, it doesn't fit at all. The ruleset of the AT is created in advance and it's open to everyone. It's not fundamentally different from e.g. mission running or almost any other activity in the game. The significant difference to the giveaways we're discussing here is that CCP doesn't pick the winner.
The AT keeps being used because it's a manner in which CCP arbitrarily sets up rules to release unique sets of items to individuals. It's relevant because it demonstrates CCP can and will do so as they see fit. Choosing the recipient outright from whatever criteria they have is fundamentally no different since the competition is the game and metagame at large rather than a 150km bubble.

Quote:
Please don't nitpick on words, items and ISK are interchangeable. Somer had the chance to sell the ships for ISK, they even could sell them for inflated prices for almost 2 months cause nobody except them knew that there were more of the ships.
See below.

Quote:
Your doubt is purely speculative.
And thus no less substantial than most of the complaints. Either way we know with past slow introductions of limited number items that trade values do not always react directly or immediately with changes in supply. We're still dealing with an item with a similar level of scarcity, so I'm not yet convinced that this has in any way played out as you describe.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#247 - 2013-10-07 23:08:55 UTC
Honestly, I can't really say that I care much about this. Those are very rare, yeah. They're theoretically worth a lot. They might as not be capable of undocking at all for fear of getting ganked.

Hence, they are basically money in the event that you sell them, or prestige in the event that you don't. SOMER already has more money than they could ever spend. Drop in the bucket.

"Oh, but it's the principle!" No it's not. Think about what effect it actually has. They're promoting something they think is a positive point in the community. While I don't much like them, I even signed the "boycott" thread (mostly because I prefer poker) I do recognize SOMER as being the most visible symbol of something EVE has that other MMOs do not. Gambling.

I can't gamble in World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars 2, or any of those other nonsense themepark games. There's nothing in those games that doesn't happen on rails. In EVE, however, not only is making a player sponsored gambling site a possibility, but it's a reality. The existence of such a thing at all is a hallmark of EVE.

This is little different than CCP giving prizes for tournaments. It's their discretion to give out promotional items to, you know, promote aspects of the game they like. The timing and the method they handled it with was probably a mistake.

But it's worth rolling my eyes at their awful PR skills, nothing else.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#248 - 2013-10-07 23:36:27 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
I won't pretend to agree with the decision from a standpoint of who is the most deserving.
I'm not disagreeing on who is most deserving (well that too, but that's beside the point), my point is that an ingame competitive for-profit organization can't ever be deserving of getting CCP support.

Quote:
The AT keeps being used because it's a manner in which CCP arbitrarily sets up rules to release unique sets of items to individuals. It's relevant because it demonstrates CCP can and will do so as they see fit.
Nobody disagrees that CCP can and will do this and nobody has any issues with it, so it is kinda irrelevant.

Quote:
Choosing the recipient outright from whatever criteria they have is fundamentally no different since the competition is the game and metagame at large rather than a 150km bubble.
Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#249 - 2013-10-07 23:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
I'm not going to bother to read this train wreck of a thread.

Even Jester is telling people in the comments that they are completely over reacting... and he's correct.

You can agree with, or at least not strongly object to, something CCP does without falling into the category of CCP shill.

They can, and certainly will, give away more rare ships for a variety of reasons in the future... it's not only their right, it's part of their job. You'd likely be hard pressed to find a game company anywhere that doesn't do give aways to people they consider beneficial to their community, whether those people make a profit (or do well) in their game world or not.

Time to get a grip.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2013-10-07 23:49:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Rob Crowley wrote:
I'm not disagreeing on who is most deserving (well that too, but that's beside the point), my point is that an ingame competitive for-profit organization can't ever be deserving of getting CCP support.
Eve isn't supposed to make moral judgements but provide a framework for interaction. Since the game doesn't judge ones purpose, why should CCP? While there are other organizations I would reward before blink, it would be because of their impact on the game and the players, not because of their motivation or profitability.

Quote:
Nobody disagrees that CCP can and will do this and nobody has any issues with it, so it is kinda irrelevant.
But they are. They are saying this was blatantly improper, to the point of accusations of professional misconduct. Granted they can't enforce their opinions, but that clearly doesn't stand in the way of public condemnation.

Quote:
Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition.
That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist. They apparently disagree. Rightfully so, since, as everyone points out, this game has an unscripted element to it, it should be well within CCP's ability to reward things they find exceptional regardless of whether they specifically defined it or not.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#251 - 2013-10-07 23:54:20 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition.
That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist. They apparently disagree. Rightfully so, since, as everyone points out, this game has an unscripted element to it, it should be well within CCP's ability to reward things they find exceptional regardless of whether they specifically defined it or not.


You can have one of two things.

Either you arbitrarily (i.e. without set criteria) hand out stuff to player corps,

or you have a sandbox universe built and run by combined efforts of players.

If CCP wants to go with the former, they should stop advertising their game as the latter.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#252 - 2013-10-07 23:58:04 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Think about what effect it actually has.
Combined handouts of more than a trillion ISK plus some official endorsement of the service. Yeah, that's easily enough to have a significant effect. Those sums can finance large-ish wars. And of course there's the issue of distorted competition. Somer is gaining advantage over all their competitors.

Quote:
I can't gamble in World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars 2, or any of those other nonsense themepark games. There's nothing in those games that doesn't happen on rails. In EVE, however, not only is making a player sponsored gambling site a possibility, but it's a reality. The existence of such a thing at all is a hallmark of EVE.
Exactly, and it's possible because of Eve's sandbox nature. And every time CCP unnecessarily messes with the sandbox (e.g. by distorting competition when supporting one group of players) the game becomes less sandbox and more themepark.

Quote:
It's their discretion to give out promotional items to, you know, promote aspects of the game they like.
They aren't promoting aspects of the game. They're promoting specific groups of players of the game. Big difference.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2013-10-08 00:00:11 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Quote:
Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition.
That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist. They apparently disagree. Rightfully so, since, as everyone points out, this game has an unscripted element to it, it should be well within CCP's ability to reward things they find exceptional regardless of whether they specifically defined it or not.


You can have one of two things.

Either you arbitrarily (i.e. without set criteria) hand out stuff to player corps,

or you have a sandbox universe built and run by combined efforts of players.

If CCP wants to go with the former, they should stop advertising their game as the latter.

This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events). That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#254 - 2013-10-08 00:07:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Crowley
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Since the game doesn't judge ones purpose, why should CCP? While there are other organizations I would reward before blink, it would be because of their impact on the game and the players, not because of their motivation or profitability.
If CCP supports an ingame competitive organization they distort competition which damages the sandbox nature of the game. I thought I explained that often enough by now.

Quote:
But they are. They are saying this was blatantly improper
No, nobody is claiming that CCP doesn't do ATs or that ATs are improper. I already explained the huge (and rather obvious) difference of this incident to ATs so please don't just ignore it.

Quote:
That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist.
Yeah, you know that's what's usually expected of referees. And if they mess around beyond impartial refereeing it's not a sandbox anymore.

Edit:
Quote:
This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events).
Now you got it!

Quote:
That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state.
It's not counter intuitive at all and of course the 2 things are mutually exclusive. The whole point of a sandbox is that the parents don't interfere.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#255 - 2013-10-08 00:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events). That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state.

They can reward whatever they want, as long as there are clear, publicly available rules about it. Not on the basis of "we like you" and behind closed doors.
Lysandra Moore
WarMongers Armament Solutions
#256 - 2013-10-08 00:13:58 UTC
I am amazed that people see this as a non-issue.

I have no problem with CCP rewarding the community for their efforts. I get a little twinge when it is in rare items that can be used in game. (I would prefer some medal or maybe a monument in space … equally unique and in my opinion, much cooler.) I can even let that go.

I do have a problem with it when nobody knows about it. I might have stomached it if there was a grand show/blog about giving them away, even though I think 1 for each player in the corp was a bit much. At least we would have known they were getting honored. Even better if it was done to multiple player groups at a time. That would have the appearance of impartiality and a true feeling of ‘rewarding the community builders.’

But these were given out to a single corp with a wink and a nod. That … seems fishy.

Now Somber is getting unique ships to auction off. None of the other sites have, even though many have been spotlighted by CCP.

And this does not smack as favoritism to a lot of you? Really? Not even a little bit?

>sigh<
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#257 - 2013-10-08 00:16:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Rob Crowley wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Think about what effect it actually has.
Combined handouts of more than a trillion ISK plus some official endorsement of the service. Yeah, that's easily enough to have a significant effect. Those sums can finance large-ish wars. And of course there's the issue of distorted competition. Somer is gaining advantage over all their competitors.

Quote:
I can't gamble in World of Warcraft, or Guild Wars 2, or any of those other nonsense themepark games. There's nothing in those games that doesn't happen on rails. In EVE, however, not only is making a player sponsored gambling site a possibility, but it's a reality. The existence of such a thing at all is a hallmark of EVE.
Exactly, and it's possible because of Eve's sandbox nature. And every time CCP unnecessarily messes with the sandbox (e.g. by distorting competition when supporting one group of players) the game becomes less sandbox and more themepark.

Quote:
It's their discretion to give out promotional items to, you know, promote aspects of the game they like.
They aren't promoting aspects of the game. They're promoting specific groups of players of the game. Big difference.

You can run a sand box game.

You can give away cool items to people who in your opinion contribute a lot of content to your sand box game.

These two things are not mutually exclusive, especially when you consider who built and gave borders to that sand box to begin with.

You might also consider two other things.

1: Blinks "competitors" are not going to suffer in any way from this. A person that gambles with Blink is just as likely to throw ISK at their competitors for other goods the very next day. There will be other rare ships and items, and people in this game have more ISK than you can shake a stick at. Frankly the trade in normal ships and modules far out strips any occasional income made from rare items. Nobody in the "competition" is going to go out of business because of this.

2: Blink, you, I, and everyone else don't own anything in game. It's not our property to own, it's not real. Not the ships, not the ISK that could be made, none of it. We don't own Gold Magnates, we don't own the Watch Scorpions, we don't own Alliance tournament prize ships. They are pixels that are owned completely by CCP, we are just allowed to use them.

This was handled in a clumsy fashion, but that is the only sin committed here.

Again, take a step back and get a grip.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#258 - 2013-10-08 00:26:31 UTC
Lysandra Moore wrote:
I am amazed that people see this as a non-issue.

I have no problem with CCP rewarding the community for their efforts. I get a little twinge when it is in rare items that can be used in game. (I would prefer some medal or maybe a monument in space … equally unique and in my opinion, much cooler.) I can even let that go.

I do have a problem with it when nobody knows about it. I might have stomached it if there was a grand show/blog about giving them away, even though I think 1 for each player in the corp was a bit much. At least we would have known they were getting honored. Even better if it was done to multiple player groups at a time. That would have the appearance of impartiality and a true feeling of ‘rewarding the community builders.’

But these were given out to a single corp with a wink and a nod. That … seems fishy.

Now Somber is getting unique ships to auction off. None of the other sites have, even though many have been spotlighted by CCP.

And this does not smack as favoritism to a lot of you? Really? Not even a little bit?

>sigh<

Is that what the ccp and csm comments look like to you

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 ?

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2013-10-08 00:33:02 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:
It's not counter intuitive at all and of course the 2 things are mutually exclusive. The whole point of a sandbox is that the parents don't interfere.

Funny thing, your reasoning here:
Quote:
Exactly, and it's possible because of Eve's sandbox nature. And every time CCP unnecessarily messes with the sandbox (e.g. by distorting competition when supporting one group of players) the game becomes less sandbox and more themepark.
Suggests that AT rewards would not be allowed as they would still potentially distort economic parity between to competing entities. When referees don't interfere, they don't interfere. The AT is an interference to the sandbox as are it's rewards.

Any reward not earned in game with participation available to all entities in game under the full set of game rules (and freedoms) is a distortion of the sandbox. So why are some permissible and others not?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2013-10-08 00:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events). That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state.

They can reward whatever they want, as long as there are clear, publicly available rules about it. Not on the basis of "we like you" and behind closed doors.

The only part I can agree with is the not behind closed doors part. The ability to reward things you find exceptional goes hand in hand with things you didn't anticipate coming out of players of the game. As such you have no real way to set criteria for being chosen that have any real meaning.