These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

100 incursion runner accounts = 1 ccp programmer job

First post
Author
Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's
#1 - 2012-01-22 08:28:53 UTC
congrats to the people creating an environment, where people can switch off features costing your jobs ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#2 - 2012-01-22 08:31:03 UTC
So incursion runners have, on average, 7 alt accounts?
Wow.
Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's
#3 - 2012-01-22 08:32:43 UTC
so an ccp programmer does earn 700 x 10$ == 7000$ a month? Wow, I should check thier job page ;)
Lord Mandelor
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#4 - 2012-01-22 08:34:42 UTC
I don't know what this thread is about, but trying to understand it makes me itch and I think I can smell colors now.
Super Chair
Project Cerberus
Templis CALSF
#5 - 2012-01-22 08:35:34 UTC
delicious incursion runner tears
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#6 - 2012-01-22 08:40:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
For one, employees cost more than just their paycheck, so $7k a month doesn't sound particularly odd. It might even be a bit too low. Hell, I cost my employer more than that, and I'm not extremely well paid.

For another, do the maths: ~350k accounts support ~500 employees → 700 accounts per employee (and your error on the subscription income can be countered by them having other sources of cash).

Want to cost one of them their job? Close 700 accounts. Want to do it with 100 incursion runners? Each needs 7 accounts. Oh, and no, you can't switch off any features.
Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's
#7 - 2012-01-22 08:41:28 UTC
Super Chair wrote:
delicious incursion runner tears


You don't get it. The tears are those of the CEO of CCP, who invested a lot of money to let this feature be developed and attract players, and whos investment just lost a lot of value. Not sure, but maybe he does not like grieving his employers as you do love grieving other players. Than maybe we loves to look them in the eyes, when firing them ;) and you both are happy ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#8 - 2012-01-22 08:42:48 UTC
Mussaschi wrote:
The tears are those of the CEO of CCP, who invested a lot of money to let this feature be developed and attract players, and whos investment just lost a lot of value.
What value has been lost?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#9 - 2012-01-22 08:48:42 UTC
not sure if dumb wow raider types are good for the game

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Mussaschi
No Wise Guy's
#10 - 2012-01-22 08:53:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
]What value has been lost?


To spell it out. Eve is payed by subscriptions. So what ever feature they develop serves (commercial side) to attract (or keep) subscriptions. Incursions have been (by own account) a successful feature, adding subscriptions to the game.

High sector incursions only available 20% of the time, means people mainly doing them are less likely to buy extra game time. So this feature lost value.

Ps. your 700 account per employer number is basically valid, assumed they distribute it evenly and not keep some more for the management (heard of people doing that). Than assuming that they only get 1000$ per person was an insult (guess you didn't get it, but since we are spelling it out here)
Ursula LeGuinn
Perkone
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-01-22 08:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn
Lord Mandelor wrote:
I don't know what this thread is about, but trying to understand it makes me itch and I think I can smell colors now.


He's saying that CCP created an environment (Incursions) in which people can "switch off features" (i.e., kill the Sansha mothership), thereby causing disgruntlement among those who would prefer to leave the mothership alive and carry on farming Incursion sites. Said disgruntled players may quit in large numbers, which in turn could theoretically result in CCP having to lay off employees.

In the interest of neutrality, I reluctantly choose not to publicly voice my opinion on this issue.

"The EVE forums are intended to provide a warm, friendly atmosphere for the EVE community." — EVElopedia

Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2012-01-22 08:56:25 UTC
All highsec incursions are being run by 1 person

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#13 - 2012-01-22 08:57:11 UTC
Are these numbers the same as the ones we lost with the super nerf, drone nerf, level 5 misson nerf, speed nerf, dram nerf and all those miners who quit because of goons?

Because I think we can live with that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#14 - 2012-01-22 08:57:42 UTC
Mussaschi wrote:
So what ever feature they develop serves (commercial side) to attract (or keep) subscriptions. Incursions have been (by own account) a successful feature, adding subscriptions to the game.

High sector incursions only available 20% of the time, means people mainly doing them are less likely to buy extra game time. So this feature lost value.
…and you get that number from where? Oh, and as long as the people keep playing (and they will), no value in your model is lost. Since there is no real reason for them to quit, they won't. If they quit just because they're running into competition, then they would have quit at some point anyway, so they didn't really add anything to begin with.
Quote:
Ps. your 700 account per employer number is basically valid, assumed they distribute it evenly and not keep some more for the management (heard of people doing that). Than assuming that they only get 1000$ per person was an insult (guess you didn't get it, but since we are spelling it out here)
So basically, you were just spouting inane nonsense. Well, that much was clear.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-01-22 08:58:10 UTC
unsubbing incursion runners are welcome to contract their items and ISK to this character

"can I have your stuff," if you will

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#16 - 2012-01-22 09:05:24 UTC
My sincerest thanks to all those involved in causing players like OPer to leave EVE and give me hope that there's still a bit of Sandbox left in EVE. Thank you!
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-01-22 09:12:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
For one, employees cost more than just their paycheck, so $7k a month doesn't sound particularly odd. It might even be a bit too low. Hell, I cost my employer more than that, and I'm not extremely well paid.

For another, do the maths: ~350k accounts support ~500 employees → 700 accounts per employee (and your error on the subscription income can be countered by them having other sources of cash).

Want to cost one of them their job? Close 700 accounts. Want to do it with 100 incursion runners? Each needs 7 accounts. Oh, and no, you can't switch off any features.


what ?

Sorry, but i dont find anything "economy" related amusing.. since its all bullshit.

But 99 percent of working people works for money in department they dont want to be, so i somehow understand it.
But wont endorse it.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#18 - 2012-01-22 09:23:49 UTC
Mussaschi wrote:
congrats to the people creating an environment, where people can switch off features costing your jobs ;)

You were playing a game ill-suited to your gentle temperament. Give my warm regards to your fellow gamers in SW:TOR.
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#19 - 2012-01-22 09:24:17 UTC
You know, I'm against the highsec Incursion nerf as I say fix the mechanics of it, not take it away or anything else.

But to be honest with you Op, your post made my eyes bleed and even my ears are ringing.
Rico Minali
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#20 - 2012-01-22 09:32:37 UTC
Dont be such a gimp. No one is 'turning off' features, some PLAYERS are merely completing incursions the way they are meant to be completed.

You dont see a bunch of gimps demanding ccp stop letting players 'turn off' their sovereignty features by exploding their stuff do you?

The problem here isnt that players are exploding the supercarriers at the end of incursions (as intended) the problem is that the feature is being manipulated by other players so it keeps feeding isk (not intended) and then bleating like children when someone else stops them from doing so using totally legitimate tactics and mechanics.

Trust me, I almost know what I'm doing.

12Next page