These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5541 - 2015-11-10 18:50:36 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Not to penalize but to balance and NOT for the sake of T3 pilots but because TSP is all gain and no loss

EDIT - Did you ever think that the introduction of T3's with SP loss may have been a step forward by CCP...
Personally? No. It was designed as a counterbalance for a generally OP group of ships. If SP loss is extended balance concerns will be exasperated further and loss aversion will be greater than ever before.

Not to mention stealth ganker nerf is not so stealth (not implying intent, but the effect is easily visible).

Lastly this is another vet advantage and promoter of inactivity. Those who have high SP and few if any training goals remaining are free to take risks with losses becoming less meaningful. For those that do have training goals this makes simply not undocking a more attractive option.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5542 - 2015-11-10 19:01:59 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:


That's a bold assumption... fewer players would join because why?

Your idea penalizes every player in game for the sake of the skill point sale being the main reason.


I hasn't stopped players from flying Strategic Cruisers, they didn't jump up and down crying because being blown up in a T3 would cost SP in fact SP sales will be a benefit to T3 pilots.

If it worked for T3 ships and is accepted as part of the game why would it not be accepted by all pilots - If your ship gets blown up you spend isk to replace it + if you die in your ship you spend Isk to replace the SP

It's not for the "sake Of" but to Balance - Or do we allow TSP which is not loss but sale for profit and gain without the risk of loss

As i stated previously you want to penalize the whole game, for a small minority that choose and accept the risks of T3 as a balance. Thats not going forward thats taking 10 steps backwards.


Not to penalize but to balance and NOT for the sake of T3 pilots but because TSP is all gain and no loss

EDIT - Did you ever think that the introduction of T3's with SP loss may have been a step forward by CCP...

Did you consider that how theyre on about launching it at present there's only going to be a certain clientele that are whole heartedly going to exp ... embrace it with all there wealth.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5543 - 2015-11-10 19:02:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Iowa Banshee
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Not to penalize but to balance and NOT for the sake of T3 pilots but because TSP is all gain and no loss

EDIT - Did you ever think that the introduction of T3's with SP loss may have been a step forward by CCP...
Personally? No. It was designed as a counterbalance for a generally OP group of ships. If SP loss is extended balance concerns will be exasperated further and loss aversion will be greater than ever before.

Not to mention stealth ganker nerf is not so stealth (not implying intent, but the effect is easily visible).

Lastly this is another vet advantage and promoter of inactivity. Those who have high SP and few if any training goals remaining are free to take risks with losses becoming less meaningful. For those that do have training goals this makes simply not undocking a more attractive option.


Personally I don't want TSP - I would rather have a remap-SP item you could buy from the store and let boosters increase SP gain (with diminishing returns).


I want to tell someone who asks about the game I play: -

It costs about $12 a month to play
NOT
it costs about $12 a month to play but if want to keep up with everyone you will need to anti up a further $25-$35

(Of course another truth is that you will never be able to catch up with anyone with lots of in game money because they will always have the means to buy SP to keep ahead of you - and it probably wont cost the real money you have to spend)
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5544 - 2015-11-10 19:06:08 UTC
Levi Belvar wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Iowa Banshee wrote:


I hasn't stopped players from flying Strategic Cruisers, they didn't jump up and down crying because being blown up in a T3 would cost SP in fact SP sales will be a benefit to T3 pilots.

If it worked for T3 ships and is accepted as part of the game why would it not be accepted by all pilots - If your ship gets blown up you spend isk to replace it + if you die in your ship you spend Isk to replace the SP

It's not for the "sake Of" but to Balance - Or do we allow TSP which is not loss but sale for profit and gain without the risk of loss

As i stated previously you want to penalize the whole game, for a small minority that choose and accept the risks of T3 as a balance. Thats not going forward thats taking 10 steps backwards.


Not to penalize but to balance and NOT for the sake of T3 pilots but because TSP is all gain and no loss

EDIT - Did you ever think that the introduction of T3's with SP loss may have been a step forward by CCP...

Did you consider that how theyre on about launching it at present there's only going to be a certain clientele that are whole heartedly going to exp ... embrace it with all there wealth.



You mean like - if you buy game time from the Alliance website we will supply you with TSP at a discount - Monetizing the game from both sides....
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5545 - 2015-11-10 19:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Iowa Banshee wrote:
Personally I don't want TSP - I would rather have a remap-SP item you could buy from the store and let boosters increase SP gain (with diminishing returns).


I want to tell someone who asks about the game I play: -

It costs about $12 a month to play
NOT
it costs about $12 a month to play but if want to keep up with everyone you will need to anti up a further $25-$35

(Of course another truth is that you will never be able to catch up with anyone with lots of in game money because they will always have the means to buy SP to keep ahead of you - and it probably wont cost the real money you have to spend)
You're bottom statement is currently unture and will continue to be slightly less than completely untrue if this is implemented.

As it stands currently:
it costs about $12 a month to play but if want to keep up with everyone you will need to become a time traveler and go back to 2003.

As it will become if this is implemented:
it costs about $12 a month to play but if want to keep up with everyone you will need to anti up a further $25-$35 or just get good at making isk or find friends in game who are.

Edit: Or you can just be honest and tell them that "catching up to everyone" isn't the brightest goal in the first place. Maybe don't poison the well from the start and more new players will thrive with or without it.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5546 - 2015-11-10 19:31:53 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
a) Does affect the game through giving the advantage of SP
b) Doesn't reward loyalty in any way (whereas the current method rewards training gained through loyalty by making it a comobity)
c) Actually pushes this into more objectionable territory than any other MT currently in game by only being obtainable via cash
d) IIs only actually limited by only willingness to spend currency with no logical limits or supply constraints (unlike the op)
e) Offers no way to match with in game effort
f) Doesn't interact with gameplay
g) Cannot be interfered with for the same reasons

It's objectively worse in every way except the ill defined and possibility of being an RMT vector, which is already cared for by PLEX and the fact that these are still much closer to obtainability that full characters.


A.Doesn't effect it any differently than TSP way,except CCP controlling it everyone has equal access at the same price.
B. The loyalty part being its more expensive to skill this way than the real time method of existing capsuleers.
C. Who gives a flying **** about MT's, theyre here and here to stay - The in games ones now are purely vanity obviously more objectionable.
D. MT's are there for that purpose are they not, surely the depreciation scale makes it obvious that its only useful up to a point.
E. What effort is there going to be to buy a TSP - oh wait we really don't know that yet !!!
F. ???? have no clue what that even means !!
G. So you prefer a way for something that is going to be very exploitable in game, As opposed to a fair , price regulated , non exploitable item. Hmmmm .

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5547 - 2015-11-10 19:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
a) Does affect the game through giving the advantage of SP
b) Doesn't reward loyalty in any way (whereas the current method rewards training gained through loyalty by making it a comobity)
c) Actually pushes this into more objectionable territory than any other MT currently in game by only being obtainable via cash
d) IIs only actually limited by only willingness to spend currency with no logical limits or supply constraints (unlike the op)
e) Offers no way to match with in game effort
f) Doesn't interact with gameplay
g) Cannot be interfered with for the same reasons

It's objectively worse in every way except the ill defined and possibility of being an RMT vector, which is already cared for by PLEX and the fact that these are still much closer to obtainability that full characters.


A.Doesn't effect it any differently than TSP way,except CCP controlling it everyone has equal access at the same price.
B. The loyalty part being its more expensive to skill this way than the real time method of existing capsuleers.
C. Who gives a flying **** about MT's, theyre here and here to stay - The in games ones now are purely vanity obviously more objectionable.
D. MT's are there for that purpose are they not, surely the depreciation scale makes it obvious that its only useful up to a point.
E. What effort is there going to be to buy a TSP - oh wait we really don't know that yet !!!
F. ???? have no clue what that even means !!
G. So you prefer a way for something that is going to be very exploitable in game, As opposed to a fair , price regulated , non exploitable item. Hmmmm .

a) True, but that wasn't your claim; you said yours didn't affect the game.
b) Yet you argued in the past that that scaling did the opposite. I'm not sure where you are on that anymore, but this is still a non change from the op save the scaling detail, which can be adjusted for that idea too.
c) Most people here give a ****. We just had this conversation over the last 2 pages again linking back to that factor (P2W/etc).
d) No, the only purpose they currently serve is the capacity for unlimited stock of an item with limited use but unlimited capacity for trade. Your idea has unlimited capacity for actual beneficial use and no capacity for trade. The op only has the limited ability to generate items for sale over what current MT's have.
e) And? Not knowing the price doesn't actually detract from that at all.
f) It means what it says.
g) Yes, obviously. That's the cornerstone of trade in the game: the ability to do so freely. Why should this be different?
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5548 - 2015-11-10 19:55:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
a) Does affect the game through giving the advantage of SP
b) Doesn't reward loyalty in any way (whereas the current method rewards training gained through loyalty by making it a comobity)
c) Actually pushes this into more objectionable territory than any other MT currently in game by only being obtainable via cash
d) IIs only actually limited by only willingness to spend currency with no logical limits or supply constraints (unlike the op)
e) Offers no way to match with in game effort
f) Doesn't interact with gameplay
g) Cannot be interfered with for the same reasons

It's objectively worse in every way except the ill defined and possibility of being an RMT vector, which is already cared for by PLEX and the fact that these are still much closer to obtainability that full characters.


A.Doesn't effect it any differently than TSP way,except CCP controlling it everyone has equal access at the same price.
B. The loyalty part being its more expensive to skill this way than the real time method of existing capsuleers.
C. Who gives a flying **** about MT's, theyre here and here to stay - The in games ones now are purely vanity obviously more objectionable.
D. MT's are there for that purpose are they not, surely the depreciation scale makes it obvious that its only useful up to a point.
E. What effort is there going to be to buy a TSP - oh wait we really don't know that yet !!!
F. ???? have no clue what that even means !!
G. So you prefer a way for something that is going to be very exploitable in game, As opposed to a fair , price regulated , non exploitable item. Hmmmm .

a) True, but that wasn't your claim; you said yours didn't.
b) Yet you argued in the past that that scaling did the opposite. I'm not sure where you are on that anymore, but this is still a non change from the op save the scaling detail, which can be adjusted for that idea too.
c) Most people here give a ****. We just had this conversation over the last 2 pages again linking back to that factor (P2W/etc).
d) No, the only purpose they currently serve is the capacity for unlimited stock of an item with limited use but unlimited capacity for trade. Your idea has unlimited capacity for actual beneficial use. The op only has the limited ability to generate items for sale.
e) And? Not knowing the price doesn't actually detract from that at all.
f) It means what it says.
g) Yes, obviously. That's the cornerstone of trade in the game: the ability to do so freely. Why should this be different?

You see the irony here, The people who want this to happen with all its unknown outcomes are suddenly averse to it when it could be sold with zero impact on the game by CCP.
I'd much prefer it to draw new people in than to create blob domains in null. Ive gone past the point of caring about MT's in games anymore and if CCP offered this by them selling it i view it no different than blizzard offering there 90 Boost for $65/40 euro's.
EDIT:
All Time based items should be protected from exploitation like characters and GTC were so you've just said you want to exploit it, Your a sterling example of why this is such a bad idea.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5549 - 2015-11-10 20:01:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
You see the irony here, The people who want this to happen with all its unknown outcomes are suddenly averse to it when it could be sold with zero impact on the game by CCP.
I'd much prefer it to draw new people in than to create blob domains in null. Ive gone past the point of caring about MT's in games anymore and if CCP offered this by them selling it i view it no different than blizzard offering there 90 Boost for $65/40 euro's.
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

That's not irony, it's inclusiveness and evening of the playing field to put emphasis where it should be, how well you play the game.

So how about we stop pretending these "unknowns" actually constitute some fundamental change in the nature of the suggestion or actually present some real reasoning instead of this scare tactic BS?

Levi Belvar wrote:
EDIT:
All Time based items should be protected from exploitation like characters and GTC were so you've just said you want to exploit it, Your a sterling example of why this is such a bad idea.
No, that's not what I said. That I'm in favor of the potential for scams to occur with this item in no way mean I plan to do so. Even if I did that doesn't make my position any less valid unless you want to claim scamming should be removed.

Also PLEX is a time based item, GTCs when brought into the game become PLEX, and PLEX are scamable. GTCs themselves are real world vouchers for access to the game and thus cannot be scammed by the in game rules. They are real world commodities. The only non scamable item in game is characters, which still require out of game real money transfer as well.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5550 - 2015-11-10 20:03:31 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
You see the irony here, The people who want this to happen with all its unknown outcomes are suddenly averse to it when it could be sold with zero impact on the game by CCP.
I'd much prefer it to draw new people in than to create blob domains in null. Ive gone past the point of caring about MT's in games anymore and if CCP offered this by them selling it i view it no different than blizzard offering there 90 Boost for $65/40 euro's.
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

That's not irony, it's inclusiveness and evening of the playing field to put emphasis where it should be, how well you play the game.

So how about we stop pretending these "unknowns" actually constitute some fundamental change in the nature of the suggestion or actually present some real reasoning instead of this scare tactic BS?

All Time based items should be protected from exploitation like characters and GTC were so you've just said you want to exploit it, Your a sterling example of why this is such a bad idea !!!

Thats why CCP should do it.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5551 - 2015-11-10 20:10:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
You see the irony here, The people who want this to happen with all its unknown outcomes are suddenly averse to it when it could be sold with zero impact on the game by CCP.
I'd much prefer it to draw new people in than to create blob domains in null. Ive gone past the point of caring about MT's in games anymore and if CCP offered this by them selling it i view it no different than blizzard offering there 90 Boost for $65/40 euro's.
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

That's not irony, it's inclusiveness and evening of the playing field to put emphasis where it should be, how well you play the game.

So how about we stop pretending these "unknowns" actually constitute some fundamental change in the nature of the suggestion or actually present some real reasoning instead of this scare tactic BS?

Levi Belvar wrote:
EDIT:
All Time based items should be protected from exploitation like characters and GTC were so you've just said you want to exploit it, Your a sterling example of why this is such a bad idea.
No, that's not what I said. That I'm in favor of the potential for scams to occur with this item in no way mean I plan to do so. Even if I did that doesn't make my position any less valid unless you want to claim scamming should be removed.

Also PLEX is a time based item, GTCs when brought into the game become PLEX, and PLEX are scamable. GTCs themselves are real world vouchers for access to the game and thus cannot be scammed by the in game rules. They are real world commodities. The only non scamable item in game is characters, which still require out of game real money transfer as well.

No they don't you can use 2 plex for the transfer. Again what is a character full of ....... skillpoints - TIME.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5552 - 2015-11-10 20:58:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????
Or are you referring to the fact again that buy CCP selling them there is no exploitable market to be had. All the in game rich people can't abuse it .

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5553 - 2015-11-10 21:22:37 UTC
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????
Or are you referring to the fact again that buy CCP selling them there is no exploitable market to be had. All the in game rich people can abuse it instead.


No only RL rich but how about players with access to a few trillion isk available from in alliance funds

Buy Multiple accounts - or reactivate the redundant bot miners - Or buy the cheaper lower skilled toons from the Bazaar
Farm accounts for SP
Improve the quality of the pilots in your fleet at a greater rate than everyone else


Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5554 - 2015-11-10 21:47:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
No they don't you can use 2 plex for the transfer. Again what is a character full of ....... skillpoints - TIME.
A few things:
Reverse redeemed plex for character transfer payment cannot be traded or scammed.
PLEX in game, which is time in game item form, can be scammed.
Characters are traded via in game currency, which per you is also time.

In game transfer of time is the current precedent. Scamming time is a precedent with a single exception, characters, for reasons related to actual theft of characters, which is not allowed.

Levi Belvar wrote:
So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????
At no point was this reasoning ever stated or implied. I have no idea where you got this from.

Levi Belvar wrote:
Or are you referring to the fact again that buy CCP selling them there is no exploitable market to be had. All the in game rich people can abuse it instead.
If by "abuse" you mean use then yes. You haven't actually justified excluding them yet save stating that scamming is possible, which is a supported mechanic of the game. Since we already know time (PLEX) is scammable and that doing so is allowed and supported, and you have such a big issue with it, are you sue you're playing the right game?

Iowa Banshee wrote:
No only RL rich but how about players with access to a few trillion isk available from in alliance funds

Buy Multiple accounts - or reactivate the redundant bot miners - Or buy the cheaper lower skilled toons from the Bazaar
Farm accounts for SP
Improve the quality of the pilots in your fleet at a greater rate than everyone else
"CCP, nerf friends"

Or more specifically: "In game entities shouldn't be able to offer advantages for their members, cooperation shouldn't be able to reap rewards for being successful, and leveraging their success should never become a benefit to their new recruits (which is ironic as that's likely the place with the highest retention)"



So basically, as I understand you both, the market that functions perfectly fine for everything else in game (including time in PLEX form) is too broken for this specifically because old players can buy things and may chose to do so for some new players.

Worse, since scamming is possible, all new players, those with the least attachment to the game and the most to gain from the feature, should reasonably be expected to be ready and willing to pay even more real cash.

And this is more fair because simply being excluded on every level due to RL finance constraints ensures equality.

Glad you got this all figured out so well.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5555 - 2015-11-10 22:11:34 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????

You now saying you didnt say the quoted section ??

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”

Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5556 - 2015-11-10 22:20:14 UTC
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????

You now saying you didnt say the quoted section ??



If CCP offered:
An item that allowed a toon to be packaged for sale ISK for SP on the market.
An item to remap a toons SP
An item to add SP or Boosters to increase SP gain (diminishing returns on higher skilled Toons)

When the above list is compared with the functions of the proposed TSP system its the SAME outcome apart from ONE thing

Something is missing - can you spot it.....
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5557 - 2015-11-10 22:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????

You now saying you didnt say the quoted section ??
I'm saying the quoted section doesn't translate to whatever that was you came up with. Whether it was exclusively affordable via PLEX (which is impossible since getting isk for PLEX requires a player with sufficient buying power in game) or exclusively available via direct CCP purchase it would still be the domain of "only RL rich players."

There was no claim or implication even remotely related to the idea that anyone was rich enough for plex but not enough to buy SP were CCP to offer it directly. That's the concept for which I have no idea the origin.

Edit: Nope, took me a sec, but I get it. You're still back at "everyone who wants this will need PLEX to afford it." From there you're moving to "since everyone already needs PLEX, a RL money expense, no one is excluded." As stated though, that's not possible since someone has to have the buying power to give that PLEX value, and thus has the buying power to get the packets directly without RL expense if they are made available.

What confuses me is that you've equated that availability and the ability to take advantage of in through in game efforts as abuse, seem to think scamming is abuse that negates the value when it does the same for literally nothing else, or seem to think that even if the market system works the fundaments of EvE's trade systems somehow need to not apply here when they work fine with the nearest comparison, PLEX.

I'm not even sure which.
Iowa Banshee
Fenrir Vangard
#5558 - 2015-11-10 22:37:52 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????

You now saying you didnt say the quoted section ??
I'm saying the quoted section doesn't translate to whatever that was you came up with. Whether it was exclusively affordable via PLEX (which is impossible since getting isk for PLEX requires a player with sufficient buying power in game) or exclusively available via direct CCP purchase it would still be the domain of "only RL rich players."

There was no claim or implication even remotely related to the idea that anyone was rich enough for plex but not enough to buy SP were CCP to offer it directly. That's the concept for which I have no idea the origin.


This is true - if you a willing to spend RL cash over and above the subscription for PLEX@store you will probably be able to do it for SP@Store

OF course if its SP@market it then follows that in game ISK rich players as well as RL rich players can do something a poor subs only player cannot - Does that not disadvantage & discourage players on a lower budget. newbies and the like?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5559 - 2015-11-10 22:48:14 UTC
Iowa Banshee wrote:
This is true - if you a willing to spend RL cash over and above the subscription for PLEX@store you will probably be able to do it for SP@Store

OF course if its SP@market it then follows that in game ISK rich players as well as RL rich players can do something a poor subs only player cannot - Does that not disadvantage & discourage players on a lower budget. newbies and the like?
Simple point of distinction.

If not tradable:
- The RL poor and in game poor can't participate.
- The RL poor and in game rich can't participate.
- The RL rich and in game poor can participate.
- The RL rich and in game rich can participate.

If tradable:
- The RL poor and in game poor can't participate.
- The RL poor and in game rich can participate.
- The RL rich and in game poor can participate.
- The RL rich and in game rich can participate.
- The RL poor and in game poor can solicit the help of the in game rich to participate.

So not being tradable is demonstrably more exclusive. Not totally inclusive for those that don't want to make it a goal, but that doesn't seem to be the intent.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5560 - 2015-11-10 22:49:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Of course people have an aversion to "only RL rich players need apply" suggestions. That reasoning should be self explanatory, but since it's, not there it is.

So these so called RL rich players are fine buying plex - isk to buy them in game, but somehow can't find $6 to buy them from CCP ????

You now saying you didnt say the quoted section ??
I'm saying the quoted section doesn't translate to whatever that was you came up with. Whether it was exclusively affordable via PLEX (which is impossible since getting isk for PLEX requires a player with sufficient buying power in game) or exclusively available via direct CCP purchase it would still be the domain of "only RL rich players."

There was no claim or implication even remotely related to the idea that anyone was rich enough for plex but not enough to buy SP were CCP to offer it directly. That's the concept for which I have no idea the origin.

Well try reading back up your intellectually challenged answers and you will find the corresponding part. You cant give me one solid reason why CCP shouldn't sell them, apart from to witter on about how to exploit something is fine and within the rules. The mechanic involved in creating this don't forget is a thin air product from the NEX store, so still needs a MT. If it could benefit everyone in game by purchasing from CCP why do you find it would be better applied so that only big corps/alliances are going to be making the most use of it.
The new average joe bloggs will not get a look in on these items player controlled, thats a fact and as you pointed out to me when i used the term "unknown outcome" referring to exploit, If you were honest you would also say the same about who is going to be controlling the purchasing of all these items.

So after all this, nothing is being done to either draw new players in or help them in anyway, player driven is purely self serving.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”