EVE Information Portal

a) I'd like to see the information suggesting that the average character is above 50mill. I'm certainly not saying it doesn't exist, but to my recollection I haven't seen it. For my part as a 6 year vet I have as many characters above as below the 50 mill mark. If your meaning is to say that there are few players limited to only < 50mill characters that's another story.

As far as what sub 50m SP characters can earn, if you think that as limited as you seem to you aren't looking for opportunities very effectively. That's why TSP will be available, because the group who "can" afford them is as wide as the individual players involved want it to be. I can't "afford" a JF right now, but not because my earning capacity can't get it, but rather because I'm not anywhere near peaking that capacity, and that peak still isn't that high. Much lower SP players are getting the same as my peak isk/hour given the means I use (hint: new player friendly incursion groups exist).

b) Using TSP for progress is a long term solution because progress can't be negated. Continuing to inject TSP may not be, but the SP gained from it puts you permanently ahead of your time based training and further expands the abilities of the character in an equally permanent way now. That you can't continue doing so at the same rate is irrelevant since there is no need or ability to expand infinitely offered by any alternatives.

e) Diminishing returns start after ~2 months of play, who said they need to be maxed out? - No one, but if you're going to make complaints about efficiencies lets be realistic about their scaling and recognize that 2+ years of SP with an 80% ROI is pretty good.

How can they distinguish with something which is available for the everyone on the market? - The same way SRP for ships available to everyone on the market distinguishes corps now. Corps are already distinguished by their willingness and capacity to reduce the need for effort from their members to obtain items already available on the market by reducing or eliminating the need for those members to fund those assets or replacements themselves.

g) No, we know that a portion, specifically the cost of the extractor, is linked to PLEX, but we don't know the vision for extractor cost and whether or not it's negligible or significant. Beyond that we've guessed the cost for the SP in the TSP would follow PLEX, but have no specific reason to believe it will play out that way.

h) I'm sorry what is the issue again? I missed where people selling TSP was an issue we needed to be concerned about. Rather I'm pretty sure the system is only functional when people are willing to trade their SP for isk, so pointing out that people will only deserves the response "All according to plan."

And regarding my situation, I intentionally linked that to an observation by CCP regarding training practices which were viewed as unhealthy. Namely putting the most relevant training aside for greater efficiency. The point being that SP was the greater shiny thing in that instance, because of near permanence (which has since been enhanced) and greater use. Some won't feel that way, but those others farming SP for isk are depending on those that will.

m) When you start with the assumption of PLEX going up it's sure to work that way. You're predicating you position upon the idea that PLEX will first go up enough to provide significant change to the amount you need to spend in cash for a certain isk value in game. There's no indication that the isk need won't match pace keeping PLEX flowing into the game.

n) No, you are broadening. I reposted the original point from the list to demonstrate the fact that your tangent had shifted away from any relevance to it. The potential losses from butthurt purists has no connection to the idea of TSP reducing the appeal of reputationally tainted characters to new players on the Bazaar. At the time of that statement that was a large part of your opposition after I made the mistake of falling into your nebulous "but the side effects" appeal.

Beyond that, there is a difference between a genuinely new unknown and a known corp thief or awoxer. The former you take a risk on while limiting your potential losses if you are a recruiter looking for new players, the latter you have a specific negative expectation of and as such don't recruit at all. Your failure to appreciate the distinction is telling.

Further when we're talking about the buyers of these characters who would be effected most by their reputations, we're talking about the players who are the least knowledgeable about finding out specific character histories or even the full potential effects of reputation.

That TSP is another way of reprocessing these characters is actually proof of the point. These characters are no longer being sold when such behavior becomes prevalent, preventing their reputaional harms from being transitioned. And as stated the mechanism for enabling this is TSP.

No encourage them to do it, they might learn something interesting.

Any update or is this idea DOA?

I'll guess fanfest announcement at the latest for new info. I'd love to be wrong and we got word either way sooner.

Nearly forgot to post something in this channel:

Transferring skills from one character to another sounds ok.

However, I would like to optimize myself.
E.g. I trained for carriers but but don't fly them.

Basically, transfer the skill points from skill A to skill B, which is currently in training.
I.e. you could double up the training speed.

E.g. I trained for dreadnought but would like to remove that.
I could use those skill points to double the training speed.

And yes this is 1:1, no skill points lost.
Why? Because we paid for those skill points already
and we pay for the transfer from one skill to another as well.

I personal feel this would really help everyone in the system. Sp is often treated sacredly but is really only something that holds back player progress, not enhances it.
The one error I find in this whole system actually has to do less with the monetization of it and more with how that monetization is done. I have spent a bit on plex and aurum recently and its actually a grinding experience for a customer. Spending money should feel good, fast, and simple. For one the price of plex and I say subscriptions, might need reassessing as that forms the single point for all other costs in eve, and at least based on the average american wage, might be a bit too high when you consider some of the other expenses you want players to buy into. Idealy you want the subscription to feel cheapish and get the customer on buying lots of little things. This is how I personally feel about this of course but as someone who spends money on their games and on eve it's what I have noticed.
Another thing is how much plex is in the game. It's known that there are people with thousands of plex just storing them and helping build up a false scarcity. While the exact numbers is up to debate it definitely adds volatility to the people who only play off plex. If the numbers of plex paying players is too high then that kind of volatility could disrupt the player ecosystem. While some of the data needed to show this could be a case is missing from player hands it's something to be mindful of. One solution could be adding some kind of lock or decay function to plex where they only last in tradeable form for a year or so. This keeps the market in a more natural flux with large room for overhead and forces people to spend.

Anyway. It's a good idea. Balancing cost and actually mechanics will be a test but the idea and core concept solves a lot of problems in one stroke.

Also some feedback at some point would be nice :D I have a few friends who might actually play if this was implemented.

The basis of your objection is false. The introduction of PLEX into the game makes the entire system one that can be taken advantage of at any point by any player with only in game isk.

Because PLEX exists in game to be bought with isk every aspect of the system is open to any player by actually investing time in game. Without the use of any cash. And that means actually investing time in the game, not just being subbed.

Further, PLEX has existed as a bypass for time where isk is concerned since it's inception. Basically if you want to cling to that line under that interpretation you're only able to do so by ignoring the state of the game for years. If the basis of an objection is intentional ignorance of the games mechanics it's not a very good argument.

Edit: Further, some of us are already investing money in an advantage as is. Hint: How much utility can an extra account potentially bring? Does CCP encourage extra accounts? Do those accounts incur extra cost that someone must bear?

Which is fully irrelevant for any argument regarding the statement " The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time." An in game advantage need have no fiat to RL (which is also a fiat currency, so I'm not even sure what the point is here) conversion to be an in game advantage.

We wouldn't if you would stop clinging to irrelevant or wholly untrue concepts as if they made a relevant point here. Especially when the existence of PLEX, a commodity with a real currency price point, already breaks every precept you're trying to cling to with that argument.

I think it's a good idea because it's a good idea. Your only objections stem from a series of false notions, be they the concept of winning with SP, the ability to buy advantages, and appeals to treat SP as a real currency when it's a virtual concept created by CCP with no such inherent equivalency.

Well obviously that's a decision CCP has to make, alongside the decision about how beholden they'll have to be to the whims of the player base when it comes to the development of the game vs what they feel to be best. They'll have to decide if they want to have their ideas held hostage be a mob which has historically not lived up to their threats to quit when thrown around at any major change.

Not sure what you mean by Eve not being a progression model: Partially because progression is part of what they monetize, whether through the transfer of progressed characters and facilitating/moderating such trades, or the creation of trained characters for sub money. Additionally because a "progression model" and a sandbox are not exclusive, the proof being the very game we play and the fact that you would call it a sandbox while having an argument about the progression model in it.

Regarding end game, that's another discussion altogether where one has to ask whether a specific end game even makes sense in a game which conceptually shouldn't funnel players to a common end since it's a sandbox. And further wonder if an end game isn't self fulfilling in the realm of player generated content.

Did I mention that this advantage already exists in the form of multiple account holding and character buying? Yes, I did.

Edit: Did I also mention this makes that advantage more accessible by lowering the price point of entry? Again, yes I did. Until you ban character trades and multi account holding on top of eliminating PLEX this idea is actually closer to being fair than the current paid advantage options with SP.

Did I also mention that since PLEX exists all the options available through this system (as well as current systems) are equally available without spending any real world currency, making you claim of not being disadvantaged rather subjective and more related to ones ability to manipulate the game? Also, yes.

Irrelevant because you are not talking about an individuals time or real money.

Did I mention that if this goes through I will be able to gain advantage by buying the only thing left in the game you cannot buy and the only thing in the game that requires time commitment. Hence the point stands " The investment of money in EVE should not give you an unfair advantage over the investment of time."

and by the way you were trolled 50 pages ago when you were convinced to create a list of points you think make this a good thing for the game when you cannot possibly know its effect on the game ...LOL you've been had

CCP definitely got us good, how many pages with just one post?