These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5561 - 2015-11-10 22:56:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.

You also missed a few things out on the non trade part, Not scammable, No chance of price fluctuation, if your soft enough - not losing them as cargo if your shipping them.

“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
#5562 - 2015-11-10 23:14:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
Well try reading back up your intellectually challenged answers and you will find the corresponding part.
If I had to guess I'd say you probably either don't have anything to point to, realize you did the same "creative" interpreting you did for the quote you referenced, and/or are just getting too lazy to support your own arguments.

Levi Belvar wrote:
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.
I gave the most important one a few times now.

Most recently here.

And also some here.

Levi Belvar wrote:
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.
Because those groups do the most for new players and have the greatest retention. Because putting the burden on new players alone with real world cash makes little sense. Because mandatory exclusion via mandating real expense unlevels the playing field more than anything in the op conceivably could. Because the alternative promotes none of the tenets of eve regarding cooperation and achieving a common goal.

Basically because it's all around worse than anything you claim to prevent, and what you present as negatives are actually the positives that will help new players get greater access.

Levi Belvar wrote:
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.
I re-demonstrated the new player draw for you, and pointed to a location it was stated prior.

That aside, my statements regarding unknowns were that you were using information you didn't have, or worse the actual fact that you didn't have information, to reach some manner of absolute conclusion, contrary to the way everything else on the market works. What I pointed out was that these have a cost and that's all. I never stated they wouldn't be able to get them on the market save in reference to your idea which eliminates that possibility.

That was not in reference to the proposal from CCP.

If we're talking about honesty, we'd have to acknowledge that we are only able to speculate, and further still have to in some way justify those speculations. Thus me saying "I don't know" is far more honest that your "joe bloggs will not get a look in on these items player controlled" without even the slightest justification behind it and a market that suggests strongly otherwise.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5563 - 2015-11-10 23:17:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.

You also missed a few things out on the non trade part, Not scammable, No chance of price fluctuation, if your soft enough - not losing them as cargo if your shipping them.
Scammable is better than unavailable.
Price fluctuation is better than unavailable.

The reason they are better is that for a non participant neither has any meaning, and for a participant it simply means more options.

Also why would you ever move it if it can't be traded? Why would it not go directly into your head since it serves no purpose in item form?


Edit: Those should actually probably be added to the list of advantages of being tradable.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#5564 - 2015-11-11 01:13:54 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
(...)

This is why the selling of skill points goes against what CCP stated :

"The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time. "

CCP Hellmar
2011-10-05

Until now every single thing in game is about time invested, This corrupts the whole philosophy of that principle.

(...)


Probably CCP is planning to shift from an access monetization model to an activity monetization model.

When players do more things ingame than they log in, either you improve how many players log in or you monetize what they do.

And frankly, CCP's chances to improve subscriptions are scarce. They don't have any plans to call in new players with some groundbreaking feature that could enable them to start from zero and in equal terms to the veteran players. Even the new content will be added to the end of endgame content, requiring alliances/structures/nullsec/ PvP and what the hell to as much as consider moving into that new space, whatever it is. Also, EVE has been cutting through the same niche for 12 years.

And all in all since CCP failed so horribly to understand that the average subscriber used to be a highsec PvEr, and those players are just leaving the game, CCP as a company don't have many options.

They rely on access monetization, but they're running out of customers willing to access the game for a fee.

They also have added customization monetization, but that is related to how many people play the game. Less players mean less need to one-time sells of cosmetic items.

So what's left to sell and monetize?

Ingame activity. The things you do, which are effectively locked behind a time-controled skillpoint barrier. You need to pay access for t game time in order to have the skills to fly that ship or use that module.

But what if you can just buy those skills? Not from a void, but from the existing 12 years long pool, to protect the skillpoint market, at least initially.

Then, what CCP does is to charge you for what you do. Activity monetization.

And once they're charging players for something they do (fly a ship for money rather than time), sky is the limit. They can charge players for absolutely anything locked behind the skillpoint barrier.

For an instance, CCP a may charge them for any skillpoints, and give them skillpoints for free if they pay a subscription ("Premium" skillpoints).

Thus there is no need to charge them for access. That, of course, calls in every player interested in EVE but not interested in paying months of subscription to "fly the cool stuff".

Skillpoints still would be a barrier. And players still could grind their way to lift it for time (grind ISK, buy skillpoints).

To us the old farts, it is very simple.

Either we stick with EVE F2P or give up all we did for those subscriptions and the effort behind them. The money we paid to CCP? Thanks for it. Now we can sell the SP to lift the ISK access barrier, if that bothers us much.

CCP is a company. They've painted themselves in a corner and the only way out is a "freemium" model with skillpoints being the bonus for subscription and the barrier to limit what a player can achieve by paying.

Then numbers will rise up, old players will get lots of PvP targets and customization monetization also increases when whales (there's always whales in F2P) feel they need to fly every ship and SKIN it in every possible way. That's in the thousands of dollars even with the current stock of the NES.


So now that CCP is moving in that direction, what are you going to do when EVE goes Free to Play, for the future well of CCP?


I... I think I will keep playing the game. Having lots of people around could prove interesting. Yes, some will be the usual freetoplayaidscancerkids. But some will stick longer and love this old wh0re for what she is, no matter how you pay her services.

(But oh I will feel SO stupid about all those thousands of euros in subscriptions...)Ugh


Brilliantly said and a large part of what drove me to similar conclusions.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#5565 - 2015-11-11 08:19:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Levi Belvar wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.
-ALWAYS AVAILABLE FROM CCP
- NOT SCAMABLE
-NO CHANCE OF PRICE CHANGE FROM CCP

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.
COULD BE LOST IF MOVING THEM TO / FROM NULL
-SUPPLY AND DEMAND - EASY FOR LARGE ALLIANCE MANIPULATION / AVAILABILITY

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.

You also missed a few things out on the non trade part, Not scammable, No chance of price fluctuation, if your soft enough - not losing them as cargo if your shipping them.
Scammable is better than unavailable.
Price fluctuation is better than unavailable.

The reason they are better is that for a non participant neither has any meaning, and for a participant it simply means more options.

Also why would you ever move it if it can't be traded? Why would it not go directly into your head since it serves no purpose in item form?


Edit: Those should actually probably be added to the list of advantages of being tradable.

Unavailable ???
Don't you understand english or something. if they were only available from CCP direct they would be available to everyone at a set price to redeem, They would never be unavailable. being a redeemed item they have no chance to be lost either if they were per account. This is what i meant about seeing something and twisting to your way of thinking.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#5566 - 2015-11-11 09:15:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Probably CCP is planning to shift from an access monetization model to an activity monetization model.

When players do more things ingame than they log in, either you improve how many players log in or you monetize what they do.

And frankly, CCP's chances to improve subscriptions are scarce. They don't have any plans to call in new players with some groundbreaking feature that could enable them to start from zero and in equal terms to the veteran players. Even the new content will be added to the end of endgame content, requiring alliances/structures/nullsec/ PvP and what the hell to as much as consider moving into that new space, whatever it is. Also, EVE has been cutting through the same niche for 12 years.

And all in all since CCP failed so horribly to understand that the average subscriber used to be a highsec PvEr, and those players are just leaving the game, CCP as a company don't have many options.

They rely on access monetization, but they're running out of customers willing to access the game for a fee.

Brilliantly said and a large part of what drove me to similar conclusions.



No, they're not "running out of people willing to pay for a game" as is put. The drop is a backlash from CCP trying to have its cake and eat in regards to accepting that this is a competitive pvp centric game but focussing more and more on the low-effort carebeary player and game mechanics. The game has been dumbed down for a long time now, in doing so they've been alienating their long term, very loyal, customers to try and bag some of the WOW crowd. People kept clinging on in hopes it would get better, many of them doing so through plex (would they actually have to pay for their accounts many would have stopped years ago).

This is how I explained it some 6 years ago in a similar thread where I warned them about it:
Quote:
So, they're alienating a part of the older clientele, in favor of new customers (which, if the numbers work out correctly is good for them). Thing is; those new customers want flawless gameplay, proper details and no bugs because they're used to that as that is what blizzard did SO well with WOW and their other games; it WORKS. EVE cannot provide that. So, they might get new people short term but it is my opinion that they will be unable to retain them long term.


So they gave a big middle finger to the old guard, using their money and long term support of the game to waste it on other projects and turning the game into something those people never asked for. And instead focussed more on the fickle "oooh shiny" grind crowd which tends to have an attention span of 5 seconds (or 1-5 months in game terms). Well done!

After Incarnage and up to 2013 we saw a resurge and we started to believe again yet CCP kept procrastinating. They did a ton of good stuff but the game play changes the game really needed didn't happen and the stuff the game really didn't need DID happen (thanks Greyscale, you fcked it up good) because unlike the old CCP folks who were avid pvpers the new ones are not, they're carebears and they aimed for a carebear game.

All the years that EVE focussed on bashing each other's heads in with space lasers the game did well, growing in numbers. Then they wanted to be WOW in space and after a while ppl caught on and gave up. The solution is not more PVE, it's more PVP because that is a niche with a solid and loyal player pool. F2P will **** EVE up even more, it'll be the same thing: a short term resurge followed by a massive drop because the PVPers gave up and PVEers lost interest and moved on to the next new shiny thing. Leaving only the F2P deadbeat poorfags who will get nothing done in terms of content creation, and a few pvpers who stick around to just farm tomatoes every day.
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#5567 - 2015-11-11 12:28:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Danmal
What I will say will have implications for the proposed model, but I need to say a little more to get there. So bear with me. First, newbies need more SP. There is almost no reasonable senior player that I have heard say otherwise. For a player to have some sort of fun a player needs about 5 M SP (assuming that most fun lies in PVPing and that the potentially more sticky players come for PVP, which is supported by the Fanfest statement that who blows up in his or her first two weeks is more likely to subscribe). The story told by commentators of AT or now the Amarr Trials that you can have fun on day one is really a delusion.

Now assume you implement your proposed plan with staggered SP transfer values.
0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer
>50 SP; 50 k transfer

What do you expect the equilibrium price to be? And who do you expect will buy this? The Day, $, and ISK equivalent of a character making 1.5 M SP per month would look something like this (I assume GTC/subscription price of $15 and a PLEX price of 1.2 b):

0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer; 10 days training; $5; 400 M ISK
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer; 7 days training; $4; 320 M ISK
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer; 3.5 days training; $2; 160 M ISK
>50 SP; 50 k transfer; 1 day training; $0.5; 40 M ISK

That will result in an equilibrium price in which all groups participate in this if and only if, >50 M SP makes ISK in game at 4 times the rate of 10-50 SP players, those make ISK at twice the rate of 5-10 M SP players, and those make ISK at 1.25 times the rate of 0-5 M SP players (or alternatively that they have a that much greater willingness to pay in real $, which is not plausible, as WTP in real $ should be the other way round if I get progressively less for my money).

What I am saying is this, the people who will participate in this the most are the young players (with the exception of some really ISK rich players that do not know what to spend ISK on and/or don't understand economics). That's OK. But if that is clear in the first place, why don't you give new players 1 M SP and allow them to purchase a one-time only 4 M SP booster pack (or whatchuwannacallit) for a lump sum.

I understand that your plan does not actually add any SP to the game, whereas mine does, but since the pitchforks and torches are already prepared given the comments, you might as well ask the community whether they would support the plan to boost newbros. Because everyone loves those, and it would be a lot more transparent and simple.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#5568 - 2015-11-11 12:41:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Danmal wrote:
What I will say will have implications for the proposed model, but I need to say a little more to get there. So bear with me. First, newbies need more SP. There is almost no reasonable senior player that I have heard say otherwise. For a player to have some sort of fun a player needs about 5 M SP (assuming that most fun lies in PVPing and that the potentially more sticky players come for PVP, which is supported by the Fanfest statement that who blows up in his or her first two weeks is more likely to subscribe). The story told by commentators of AT or now the Amarr Trials that you can have fun on day one is really a delusion.

Now assume you implement your proposed plan with staggered SP transfer values.
0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer
>50 SP; 50 k transfer

What do you expect the equilibrium price to be? And who do you expect will buy this? The Day, $, and ISK equivalent of a character making 1.5 M SP per month would look something like this (I assume GTC/subscription price of $15 and a PLEX price of 1.2 b):

0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer; 10 days training; $5; 400 M ISK
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer; 7 days training; $4; 320 M ISK
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer; 3.5 days training; $2; 160 M ISK
>50 SP; 50 k transfer; 1 day training; $0.5; 40 M ISK

That will result in an equilibrium price in which all groups participate in this if and only if, >50 M SP makes ISK in game at 4 times the rate of 10-50 SP players, those make ISK at twice the rate of 5-10 M SP players, and those make ISK at 1.25 times the rate of 0-5 M SP players (or alternatively that they have a that much greater willingness to pay in real $, which is not plausible, as WTP in real $ should be the other way round if I get progressively less for my money).

What I am saying is this, the people who will participate in this the most are the young players (with the exception of some really ISK rich players that do not know what to spend ISK on and/or don't understand economics). That's OK. But if that is clear in the first place, why don't you give new players 1 M SP and allow them to purchase a one-time only 4 M SP booster pack (or whatchuwannacallit) for a lump sum.

I understand that your plan does not actually add any SP to the game, whereas mine does, but since the pitchforks and torches are already prepared given the comments, you might as well ask the community whether they would support the plan to boost newbros. Because everyone loves those, and it would be a lot more transparent and simple.


Go play COD where you can unlock all the gear with micro transactions. See CCP, this is the type of mindset you attract when you change the game to cater to non-efforts.
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#5569 - 2015-11-11 13:20:19 UTC
effort |ˈefərt|, noun: a vigorous or determined attempt

What has sitting on your behind waiting for your skills to train to do with effort?

Gregor Parud wrote:
Danmal wrote:
What I will say will have implications for the proposed model, but I need to say a little more to get there. So bear with me. First, newbies need more SP. There is almost no reasonable senior player that I have heard say otherwise. For a player to have some sort of fun a player needs about 5 M SP (assuming that most fun lies in PVPing and that the potentially more sticky players come for PVP, which is supported by the Fanfest statement that who blows up in his or her first two weeks is more likely to subscribe). The story told by commentators of AT or now the Amarr Trials that you can have fun on day one is really a delusion.

Now assume you implement your proposed plan with staggered SP transfer values.
0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer
>50 SP; 50 k transfer

What do you expect the equilibrium price to be? And who do you expect will buy this? The Day, $, and ISK equivalent of a character making 1.5 M SP per month would look something like this (I assume GTC/subscription price of $15 and a PLEX price of 1.2 b):

0-5 M SP; 500 k transfer; 10 days training; $5; 400 M ISK
5-10 M SP; 400 k transfer; 7 days training; $4; 320 M ISK
10-50 M SP; 200 k transfer; 3.5 days training; $2; 160 M ISK
>50 SP; 50 k transfer; 1 day training; $0.5; 40 M ISK

That will result in an equilibrium price in which all groups participate in this if and only if, >50 M SP makes ISK in game at 4 times the rate of 10-50 SP players, those make ISK at twice the rate of 5-10 M SP players, and those make ISK at 1.25 times the rate of 0-5 M SP players (or alternatively that they have a that much greater willingness to pay in real $, which is not plausible, as WTP in real $ should be the other way round if I get progressively less for my money).

What I am saying is this, the people who will participate in this the most are the young players (with the exception of some really ISK rich players that do not know what to spend ISK on and/or don't understand economics). That's OK. But if that is clear in the first place, why don't you give new players 1 M SP and allow them to purchase a one-time only 4 M SP booster pack (or whatchuwannacallit) for a lump sum.

I understand that your plan does not actually add any SP to the game, whereas mine does, but since the pitchforks and torches are already prepared given the comments, you might as well ask the community whether they would support the plan to boost newbros. Because everyone loves those, and it would be a lot more transparent and simple.


Go play COD where you can unlock all the gear with micro transactions. See CCP, this is the type of mindset you attract when you change the game to cater to non-efforts.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#5570 - 2015-11-11 14:02:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Danmal wrote:
effort |ˈefərt|, noun: a vigorous or determined attempt

What has sitting on your behind waiting for your skills to train to do with effort?


Why are you effectively asking to start your WOW character at lvl 60, where you can buy 10 extra levels for x amount of money. This isn't WOW. And how can you possibly think this moronic idea (and the ones that come from it) won't fck up the core of the game?
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#5571 - 2015-11-11 14:09:56 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Danmal wrote:
effort |ˈefərt|, noun: a vigorous or determined attempt

What has sitting on your behind waiting for your skills to train to do with effort?


Why are you effectively asking to start your WOW character at lvl 60, where you can buy 10 extra levels for x amount of money. This isn't WOW. And how can you possibly think this moronic idea (and the ones that come from it) won't fck up the core of the game?



you can start your wow career at lv 90 now for just a little bit of cash.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5572 - 2015-11-11 14:18:32 UTC
As a player with above 100 mil sp and nothing much I need to train for, I sure would like the option to play for free if i disable my training.

I also think is is BS how people with high sp are getting shafted. What a way to thank your loyal customers What?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
YouAreMyBounty Sarn
South Sun Industries
Brave Collective
#5573 - 2015-11-11 14:27:40 UTC
This is the thing though. If they decide to implement TSP's, would you still have to pay for an Eve subscription to be able to play? I would literally pay to buy 20mill more ISK and then never pay a single penny to the developers again. That would be awesome. But I just doubt CCP would do that. I think they'd force you to pay to play even without training anything.

One limiting factor of Eve is that you can only re-map once a year. This is SO annoying & unnecessary. If they sacked that off and allowed you to remap, or re-do your existing skill points, then this would suffice. There is no need for TSP's. I am highly against them.
YouAreMyBounty Sarn
South Sun Industries
Brave Collective
#5574 - 2015-11-11 14:32:50 UTC
I would also like to know how a post with over 5500 comments on hasn't been updated by the Devs. We want to communicate with you and work with you!! Why is nobody from CCP appearing to care about these responses?
Amanda Orion
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#5575 - 2015-11-11 14:34:36 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:


I also think is is BS how people with high sp are getting shafted. What a way to thank your loyal customers What?


Indeed.

I have expressed my gratitude by allowing MCT to lapse.

I will review it again once this lunacy has been resolved - one way or the other.
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#5576 - 2015-11-11 14:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Danmal
I can think that because if they limit it once and for all to newbros, then it does not fck up the core of the game, as you say. Because the newbro needs to be advanced to the core of the game first, so that s/he can participate in it.

I can also think that because the claim that your newbro skill training had anything to do with effort has neither face validity nor veracity. All you did to train your first three months of skill up is to pay your subscription and sit on your behind. That is not effort, as you claim. You haven't responded to that.

CCP loses north of 75 percent of users in the first month (that was data from 2005). Today probably more. I would bet one reason why people leave the game is because they feel they can't do anything in the beginning. What other game are you paying 45 bucks (three months of subscription) for, in which you can't really do much? I am genuinely interested in your answer to this question.

Moreover, if you haven't been following recent developments, despite CCP having made the game better in many respects, they are losing concurrent users at the very least (that is, content) and more likely subscribers. If the loss of subscribers that others have projected are anywhere near accurate, then CCP is not profitable (not even in its heyday has it been terribly profitable). That means one of two things. They need to cut costs or increase revenues. That's an economic necessity, as much as you may want to shield yourself from it. Increased revenues can come from monetizing the existing user base or making money off a new player. By the same virtue you are against what I am saying, you could also be against the character bazaar. Because I can just take $ and buy a character.

Now instead of selling SP directly as I proposed, there would be a perfect work around within the current system: You or I create 3 month characters with skills that we think are desirable and sell them on the character bazaar. The problem is even if we do this for good and sell them for three plex, the buyer (or we) would still have to stomach the two plex transfer fee, which quite obviously increases the cost by 2/3 at least. At that point we are looking at a $75 or so price tag for a character that can fly a Navy Comet reasonably well. Do I really break the game by making something more cheaply possible that is already possible to do more expensively today?


Gregor Parud wrote:
Danmal wrote:
effort |ˈefərt|, noun: a vigorous or determined attempt

What has sitting on your behind waiting for your skills to train to do with effort?


Why are you effectively asking to start your WOW character at lvl 60, where you can buy 10 extra levels for x amount of money. This isn't WOW. And how can you possibly think this moronic idea (and the ones that come from it) won't fck up the core of the game?
Danmal
TYR.
Exodus.
#5577 - 2015-11-11 14:50:26 UTC
And with that approach you expect CCP to pay their devs how and for how long?

Rek Seven wrote:
As a player with above 100 mil sp and nothing much I need to train for, I sure would like the option to play for free if i disable my training.

I also think is is BS how people with high sp are getting shafted. What a way to thank your loyal customers What?
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#5578 - 2015-11-11 15:09:51 UTC
YouAreMyBounty Sarn wrote:
I would also like to know how a post with over 5500 comments on hasn't been updated by the Devs. We want to communicate with you and work with you!! Why is nobody from CCP appearing to care about these responses?


Because this is only *pretending* to be a feedback thread, this change will happen whether we like it or not, whether it's a good idea or not because *$£ reasons $£*.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#5579 - 2015-11-11 15:10:26 UTC
Danmal wrote:
And with that approach you expect CCP to pay their devs how and for how long?

Rek Seven wrote:
As a player with above 100 mil sp and nothing much I need to train for, I sure would like the option to play for free if i disable my training.

I also think is is BS how people with high sp are getting shafted. What a way to thank your loyal customers What?



Through the constant micro transaction they are adding?

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#5580 - 2015-11-11 15:12:07 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Danmal wrote:
effort |ˈefərt|, noun: a vigorous or determined attempt

What has sitting on your behind waiting for your skills to train to do with effort?


Why are you effectively asking to start your WOW character at lvl 60, where you can buy 10 extra levels for x amount of money. This isn't WOW. And how can you possibly think this moronic idea (and the ones that come from it) won't fck up the core of the game?



you can start your wow career at lv 90 now for just a little bit of cash.


Exactly, and what does that mean? That you're effectively circumventing the actual game, you're avoiding having to grind so you can instantly do the endgame: grinding to get better gear so you can grind better... or something. But EVE doesn't have an end game nor does it necessarily have a grind.

PVE focussed grind MMOs are forever forced to keep adding content, that's what their business model is based on: keep dangling that carrot on a stick, every 6 months a new one. People pay extra money to get an expansion with a whole bunch of content that players will immediately circumvent, trying to find the fastest way to the end goal to THEN whine about how there is no content, and that they need more. EVEN in a well run MMO like WOW people start whining for new content literally weeks after a new expansion. But EVE isn't a grind MMO, it's a sandbox that doesn't HAVE content as such. CCP trying to cater to the PVE mind set players doesn't work because they can't still their hunger for more and more pve content.

It's the carebear mind set that asks for p2w, p2advance and shortcuts. And if that actually happens then 3 seconds later they'll whine about how they're bored again, wanting more. Listening to people like that doesn't work because A) they don't know what they really want and b) they're too dumb to realise how something will fck up the game they want to play.