|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 11:25:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Originally by: AnzacPaul does csm know how vanity items survive being podkilled? Cause ccp wont answer my thread :(
They do this because if worn clothing was destructible, nobody would ever undock wearing any NEX-store goods.
That sounds like a very good way to solve all recent problems. Don't let people who buy this crap undock, thus keeping them out of our spaceship game.
It's the perfect solution.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 11:48:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow The whole point of the NEX store is to generate income. Non-destructible clothes are almost certainly revenue-optimal.
What a load of bull****. If you want to generate income you create DESTRUCTIBLE ITEMS SO THEY CAN BE BLOWN UP SO PEOPLE HAVE TO BUY NEW ONES.
You really have no clue about this. It's obvious and you're not doing yourself a favor by pretending you do.
JESUS, they are even talking about built in obsolescence in the fearless newsletter as one of the best things to do. That's the antithesis of indestructible items.
Go away.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 12:03:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Shepard Book Some people are always going to want to find something to complain aboutà
Yeah, like we just found out that the person who should be discussing the players stance on the economic impacts the latest expansion has on the sandbox does not understand the most basic economic premises and instead repeats CCP's catastrophic and wrong stance.
That's the something we just found. We found out that we're ****ed. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 12:06:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow Non-destructible clothes are almost certainly revenue-optimal.
I'll make it even easier for everyone to see that Trebor is not competent to discuss this by asking the following question:
What is revenue-optimal?
There. See what I just did? I just called him out on using a completely meaningless term.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 12:32:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Yarrrrrhh on 12/07/2011 12:36:44
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
1) Non-destructible items can be sold at higher prices than destructible ones (although we can all agree that the prices CCP settled upon were in most cases wrong).
We're talking about revenue here. Revenue is the product of price times number of sales. Ignoring the second part of the equation does not really improve my view of your economic capabilities.
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
2) There are broadly speaking two populations in EVE -- Carebears who rarely get podded, and thus rarely would have to rebuy their destructible clothes, and PvPers who are always getting podded, and thus (given the annoyance-factor of having to undress/redress) would rarely buy them in the first place. Nobody who is getting podded every week is going to buy a monocle.
Using this approach anything can be justified. Broadly speaking this is even more bull****, no facts, no statistics, nothing. I'd even argue that there are more than two populations. Broadly speaking, that is.
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
It is the set of conditions and prices that generates the greatest income. I have some small experience with pricing of goods with little or no marginal cost-of-goods-sold; you may be interested in a brief paper I wrote on the subject over a decade ago; not entirely on point, but there are analogies.
Scanned over it. It's about tipping and intellectual property. Barely any numbers inclded, no graphs, no formulae, no link to raw data. No references to other scientific papers. And it's two pages long.
You wrote that in school and it does not apply to the topic at hand. You have no clue about this.
The fact that you're even linking to that so called 'paper' to prove your point tells me you're delusional about the amount of your scientific expertise. Thus I repeat my initial point. We're ****ed.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 12:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Shepard Book
Everyone has opinions. All you do is try to berate people in most posts you make no matter what the subject. So yeah, I do not listen to a word you say. I believe most people can see through the poison you are trying to spread.
See that's the problem. You think these are opinions and you 'believe' stuff.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 13:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Prince Kobol
On top of that, like another poster has already stated, if they could be destroyed all that is going happen is people are going to complain that everytime they undock they are going to have remove the items and they will stop buying items.
Some players actually have some sort of pride. I understand that feeling must be alien to you but trust me, those players would undock with destructible NeX clothes, showing the people around them how badass they are by wearing what they're wearing while flying ships that make it hard to be ganked.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 14:37:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Yarrrrrhh on 12/07/2011 14:37:22
Originally by: Trebor Daehdoow
Bottom line: you are entitled to your opinion, but until you lay down some facts to support them, they are unlikely to convince anyone.
No arguing on that. That's absolutely valid. So what's your next step now that you've agreed that your former statements are unconvincing?
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 14:49:00 -
[9]
Snake Sets cost multiple times the amount of what a monocle costs. People still use them. People fly faction fit Golems which have a paper tank as well, which are worth a lot more than monocles.
The whole argument of "if NeX would be destructible nobody would buy it" is just utter bull****, disproven by items in game right now that are worth more than them.
It's such a shame that we're represented by people who deny that.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 15:01:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Serwrath Edited by: Serwrath on 12/07/2011 14:55:18 By following that logic we should all have to buy new clothes (starter ones too) EVERYTIME we get podded; and don't try to say "Oh, but they are stater clothes so they should be free!" 'cause it makes no sense when some of the starter ones look better then the NeX ones. If you grant me this then I agree to your argument.
You're just proving how bad this whole concept is. It doesn't make sense as it is right now. At all. Shoes for the price of multiple battleships just don't make sense. No matter how you twist it. NeX failed, CCP failed, the whole concept is flawed. I'm just pointing out that the people who defend NeX can't even justify it with economic means.
|
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 15:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Portmanteau
And consider this... Eve is about risk/reward right ? I see you point out that vanity items have no in game effects. true ofc, but that doesn't mean they have no in game "reward", if they did not, exactly why would anyone bother to buy them ? The massive monocle trollfest was enough to clearly prove the fact that folks get an enormous amount of fun from the monocle, THAT IS A REWARD
WHERE'S THE RISK ??
THIS! So much this!
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 16:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Vice Admiral Spreadsheet
Originally by: Yarrrrrhh Snake Sets cost multiple times the amount of what a monocle costs. People still use them. People fly faction fit Golems which have a paper tank as well, which are worth a lot more than monocles.
The whole argument of "if NeX would be destructible nobody would buy it" is just utter bull****, disproven by items in game right now that are worth more than them.
Snake sets improve your combat ability. They have a use. People fly faction fit Golems because faction modules are more efficient or powerful.
The second part of your post is completely irrelevant. Useless monocles are not Estamel Invulnerability fields.
Monocles give an instant 500% bonus on ****ing people off. They're not useless you peasant.
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 19:28:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Dante Marcellus
Originally by: AnzacPaul does csm know how vanity items survive being podkilled? Cause ccp wont answer my thread :(
NAKED.
IN.
YOUR.
POD.
What about monocles?
|
Yarrrrrhh
|
Posted - 2011.07.12 22:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Morganta Going for the jugular is just stupid, vanity items will be in demand always so why not be smart about it and go for volume sales over gutting the players wallet on a one shot deal?
Oh no you didn't. You did not just call CCP and Trebor stupid for not understanding micro-transactions, the long tail effect and how to adequately price vanity items in that context.
YOU DID NOT CALL THEM STUPID!
... or did you.
|
|
|
|