Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vuxacha
VTECHS
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 08:40:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Originally by: Vuxacha Disable ALL market orders
I was going on and reading, and nodding, and agreeing with the post made by Vuxacha, and then the quoted text came into view... at the moment I am having an interesting sensation in my left arm, I think its a heart attack.....
lol, don't panic. I was just goading Shar cos he is a trader and I suspect that he must have at least 1 account he pays for with isk (something considered highly unfair in most MMOs). That was gonna be my opening, but after seeing how well this forum operates I guess its not nice to troll. Even if some ....person guy.... is suggesting a change that would throw me out of the game, as well as the hundreds of interesting adults I've met here. I've never played a game with so many vets and 20+yos. I suspect that the light pressure for skill 'levelling' and the single node (so you never come back to find everyone has switched servers/sides) environment are the reason. I also do not like the fact that it appears the CSM will be used for the purpose of people grabbing their pitch forks and going on their own vendettas, or simply trying to buff their own selves up.
=( I left some market orders up before I left last. Ouch. Remember how much trit used to cost? Yeh.... |
Threv Echandari
Caldari K Directorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 17:03:00 -
[62]
NO
This is part of Eve's uniqueness and something that makes the game attractive to players who may wish to quit paying yet come back later. Bad idea. |
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 19:14:00 -
[63]
Why should CCP support the interests of people who aren't paying at the expense of those who are?
Eliminating absentee skill training would set the stage for skill training ques. Something most active players would like to see. If CCP were to institute a skill que under current conditions, absentee players would be able to set up long que's and train without paying for months. This is and would playing for free.
Accumulating Research Points to purchase Datacores while absent from EVE and not paying is just nuts. It's like setting a mining script to run while you take off for months. CCP is against scripted (afk) mining or farming so why should they continue to allow the accumulation of resources by someone who isn't even paying to be active. When these resources hit the market place they impact the economy and affect active player's who are paying.
Want to play? Then pay.
Regards, Windjammer |
Irene Ley
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 20:41:00 -
[64]
Hi all,
Here is the excuse for CCP to take down RP and SP on inactive accounts. I am sure that they will take note from this nice topic that will let they earn more money but will not even try to read anything about the topic related to 30, 60 and 90 days gtc. Since it would hurt their income.
So keep with those things to make eve a more efficient machine to earn money, CCP will love u all.
One thing, this kind of training is not an abuse, it's just the way it was designed. It's like the rules of conduct or the procedure to setup a pos in space. Everyone knows how to do it and accept it, the bad thing comes once someone decides to change it hurting people that likes this rule. I like this game and I like the offline training. It's is one of the reasons because of I play it. Why dont u use your time playing and not giving CCP excuses to earn more money?.
Have fun in EVE-CRASH-REGISTER-ONLINE.
|
Harkonin
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 20:53:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Inanna Zuni My personal view has always been that if you aren't an active player (in this case defined as a *paying* player) then you shouldn't expect to gain the benefits of being a paying player - ie SP and RP.
I - unofficially - raised this at the recent CCP-CSM meeting in passing on another subject and it was indicated to me from the CCP side that they saw this as beneficial to enticing people back into EVE if they feel they need to take a break from regular play.
I'm still uncertain about it, though setting a long skill to level 5 and disappearing off for that period without paying is (to me, anyway) clearly gaming the system. Commercially though it might well be better for CCP in the longer run to permit this.
IZ
Hello,
A few things.
Did u ever raised a topic related to this matter to take note of the common thoughts of the people before using your privileged position?
Do u use your privileged position often in your rl to achieve personal enhancements or to impose your own ideas?
Thankx.
|
Vuxacha
VTECHS
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 20:57:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Windjammer Why should CCP support the interests of people who aren't paying at the expense of those who are?
Eliminating absentee skill training would set the stage for skill training ques. Something most active players would like to see. If CCP were to institute a skill que under current conditions, absentee players would be able to set up long que's and train without paying for months. This is and would playing for free.
Accumulating Research Points to purchase Datacores while absent from EVE and not paying is just nuts. It's like setting a mining script to run while you take off for months. CCP is against scripted (afk) mining or farming so why should they continue to allow the accumulation of resources by someone who isn't even paying to be active. When these resources hit the market place they impact the economy and affect active player's who are paying.
Want to play? Then pay.
Regards, Windjammer
Why is it mutually exclusive? You could easily control the rules of the queue to prevent abuse. To set up long trains to take advantage of the current situation, you have to spend a bunch of time preparing some big Vs (with learning and implants, there arent many). It a huge pain in the neck. If you're unable to afford your account every month you can do it, but it doesn't do more than save a few dollars. Everyone else will continue to train and earn isk.
I mentioned in my last post that people like that support the habits of the power gamers, because they pay to setup their long trains and probably use almost no server resources to do so. The benefits do not end there. These people are spending isk (buying skillbooks etc) whilst earning almost nothing. That means they're also acting as isk sinks. This would be a change that would cause an exodus from Eve. How does that benefit us? There'd be no lag reduction because they're already not using resources. My SP wouldn't suddenly be worth more by even a measurable fraction, because most trains are not big ass V trains. They're medium ass V.
I still agree with the removal of RP accumulation, however, I've already mentioned in this thread that market orders persist. In addition to that, share dividends continue to go out. Passive progression would be so hard to stamp out. Meanwhile games like WoW give rested status to characters, a feature that earlier MMOs didn't possess. Why? Because penalising people for not playing is not the same as encouraging them to play.
|
Sir Ibex
|
Posted - 2008.06.30 22:10:00 -
[67]
No, bad idea. Not supported.
This is within the game rules and there's nothing illegal about it. What people do with their accounts in none of your business. No one is preventing you from doing the same thing. It's not abuse. It's taking advantage of your options.
The people who use the time during account inactivity to research stuff will off course use that to get isk or RP, but that's good. These people will flood the game with cheaper, abundant BPOs, BPCs, items and ships. This will in turn drive prices down on stuff, and maybe even somehow drive the prices down on characters, and time cards.
Given the recent time card price hikes, some people need every available resource at hand to be able to make enough isk every two months. This is just one more way to do so. Me and many other people have been asking CCP for a long time now, to give us an option of an extended skill queue so that we can continue training skills when we are away. We ask this, because we are unable to renew our subscription as often as we used to, so at least we should have the option to keep training our skills/researching stuff. Off course there are people who have other reasons to ask for this new option, but either way this is an important issue.
Then you come along and ask that even our existing option to finish our skill in training after account expires be removed... You gotta be joking...
But don't worry. CCP wont listen to you. They need people like me to keep playing the game even if I don't renew my subscription as often as I used to. It's still money to them, even if it's less money. Therefore, I'm sure they will at least keep the existing options, if not give us the extended queue.
Look man.. I respect you. You helped me when I was a total newb, and you were nice to me. I will always remember that. I also respect your opinion, and in some small way you could be right from where you stand. But please leave this issue alone. Consider how this would impact other people who play this game "on the budget". Who are you to tell them, they can no longer do so? |
ITTigerClawIK
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 19:01:00 -
[68]
i am 50/50 with this idea,
50% For
i am for this idea in the stopping Research point gain as yes, it is farming ISK in a way as it is gaining ISK from no work in game just like the Macro Miners we all know and hate so this would be a good thing to stop as the account is deactivated, however,
50% Against
i am against not allowing the player to finish a skill training while ofline, as it is a single skill that is training and as soon as tht is over, it does stop and no more training is done, it is not gaining any ISK in game and only affecting one particuler area of the game of witch that skill is relevent for unlike RP witch is giving an overall gain in the money dept.
Sig space reclaimed in the name of me -courtesy of Tiggy ([email protected]) |
Aiko Intaki
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 19:19:00 -
[69]
I'm generally against this idea.
The main reason I oppose it is because at several points I had to take extended leaves from EvE to deal with RL situations - moving overseas for instance. I did happen to train Caldari Battleship V in that time, and it frankly made me quite tickled to come back and find a skill trained that I likely would not have bothered to train had I kept playing throughout that period. It's a positive that added to my enjoyment of the game and in no way was detrimental to another's enjoyment of the game.
In other MMO's, which largely require XP grinds of various sorts, taking several months off generally pushes you significantly behind your friends, guildies, etc. It is precisely because this is not the case in EvE that I have ended up paying for more months on my subscription that I have in any other MMO (aside, perhaps, from EQ1).
|
ceyriot
Entropians on Vacation
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 22:10:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Zeknichov
Faction Store - Killboard |
|
Saraah Leeown
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 07:03:00 -
[71]
Don't care about skill training while inactive, but I shudder to think how many accounts are only activated once every couple of months, just to collect a mountain of datacores.
So don't care about SP, but inactive accounts collecting RP is ridiculous
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 07:16:00 -
[72]
The only problem with removing RP increase on inactive accounts is that it should be done in a fashion that will not block regular RP increase in active accounts.
Requiring to do the daily mission will change the research agents usage a lot, deactivating RP generation when the account subscription is not payed don't seem so linear to implement as it will require transmission of data between the account management and the game world and that can be a security weakness I think.
If that is simple to correct, I am in favor of removing the RP production but not the skill training from inactive accounts.
|
faltzswher
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 07:43:00 -
[73]
The RP collection I agree is somthign that needs to be fixed a simple fix is a time limit in which you ahev to talk to your agent say once a month.
However Skill finshing when the accounts inactive is fine one of the best bit about the game is its flexabilty around my real life.
|
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:21:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Sylthi on 03/08/2008 08:22:37 I agree with what a lot of people have already said: Expired account RP gain is just stupid. This needs to go. This hurts the economy and I am CERTAIN the real money for isk leeches are taking full advantage of it somehow.
Expired account SP could be argued either way. Mostly I side with you SHOULDN'T be able to put SP on an expired account.
Still, the RP situation DEFFINATELY needs looking into, so I'll give the thread my support based on that idea. *
* |
Tzujeih
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:37:00 -
[75]
Go to hell.
|
Tzujeih
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:38:00 -
[76]
Go to hell.
|
Tzujeih
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 08:39:00 -
[77]
Go to hell.
|
Joss Sparq
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 09:01:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Joss Sparq on 03/08/2008 09:02:19
I'm ambivalent about the RP gain aspect but I'll happily offer a firm NO to removing SP gain from inactive accounts. I think that was something CCP did well from the start and removing it will hurt EVE.
Also, I would think these are two distinct issues that should have two distinct threads for discussion.
|
alt 089888
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 11:20:00 -
[79]
Go back to WoW noob!! This is one of the key features of eve.
|
Big Al
Stoat's Ultimate Carebear Adventure
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 16:10:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Big Al on 03/08/2008 16:10:00 CCP seem content to keep shooting themselves in the foot. I see no reason not to go ahead with this.
|
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 15:46:00 -
[81]
Hell yes, how hard can it be to code?
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 17:34:00 -
[82]
Much to my dismay CCP has decided to move on this issue without the CSM delegates debating the value of eliminating Ghost training but leaving all other ghost activities in. (RP farming & Market Orders) I would have preferred smaller steps eliminating some of the absentee resource gains other than skill training. (Again, I don't ghost train.) I would have also liked to see some sort of guidelines to cover the occasional billing problem here and there that does, often enough, crop up. Sad that CCP will latch onto an idea from the players but will not discuss the idea they co-opt with their customers. In fact, I think CCP has forgotten that in the end they are a service provider and we are the customers. Rile us at risk to your business... in an already risky economy for you.
To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean. |
Bloody Rabbit
Jita Miners
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 18:08:00 -
[83]
Agree,
There is no good reason to allow unpaid accounts to gain skills.
Originally by: Shadarle I notice a lot of people who are very bad at playing the market tend to want CCP to step in and remove the competition from the market so they don't continue coming in last place.[/qu |
Mierin Rayen
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 20:43:00 -
[84]
Yes. If you're going to do something, you need to be consistent with it.
|
zzbooks
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 16:01:00 -
[85]
You do not know that Ghost RP are not going to be removed. Changes that will dramatically affect the value of in-game items (datacores in this case) are never announced pre-patch.
Yes I have been buying datacores today, starting a good rumour means I win even if I am wrong.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 13:19:00 -
[86]
Fully supported!
Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 13:44:00 -
[87]
Originally by: zzbooks Changes that will dramatically affect the value of in-game items (datacores in this case) are never announced pre-patch.
:speednerf:
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 13:50:00 -
[88]
Diary of a pod pilot |
Zanpt
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 12:04:00 -
[89]
No, this is a stupid suggestion. Unfortunately CCP already made the abso****inglutely stupid decision to nerf so-called "ghost training." (Funny, I don't recall ever seeing it referred to by that mildly pajorative term until they decided to nerf it.) |
NO CARRIER
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 04:22:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Windjammer Why should CCP support the interests of people who aren't paying at the expense of those who are?
Sorry, no, the question is nonsensical. There's no trade-off. The "interests" to which you refer are not supported at the expense of anyone else. SP and RP are not zero-sum mechanisms. Look up the term. Most of the things nonthinking people think are zero-sum are actually not.
Originally by: Windjammer Eliminating absentee skill training would set the stage for skill training ques. Something most active players would like to see. If CCP were to institute a skill que under current conditions, absentee players would be able to set up long que's and train without paying for months.
You fail again. Don't try to design things you don't know how to design. A simple rule would prevent the problem you mistakenly believe would occur: keep absentee training as it is, but the queue doesn't kick in while you're suspended. That would give us a queue but keep unsub training just as it has been for 5 years. See how easy that was?
Originally by: Windjammer This is and would playing for free.
You also seem to be confused about what constitutes "playing."
I won't go into RP as it isn't my thing, but training SPs are bought and paid for the moment you click to initiate the training step. There is no ongoing training activity -- it's an illusion. There is only a completion date/time, which only means you can't use the benefit of the skill step before that time, and whether you "play" or not in the meantime is completely irrelevant. Therefore whether you pay in the meantime should also be irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |