|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 10:15:00 -
[1]
Personally I'll not be hit by this since I have just one account which I'm keeping active at all times. This however decides whether getting an alt would be worth it - and that's a solid "no" for me as things have developed.
It is disappointing though to see such a move from CCP, especially since, as I learned, the question has been brought up before in connection with removing ghost training from the Chinese server, and CCP have stated numerous reasons why they wouldn't do it on TQ.
In light of this, the blog seems like a weak attempt at justification with little factual information in it. The statement ghost training has been a bug is simply a lie since it has been acknowledged and actively supported, turning it into a de facto feature, and the innuendo that ghost training characters impose a load on the database servers in any significant way can be perceived as false as well by anyone who knows what a database is.
At the end of the day, it's CCP's game and they have the power to do with it as it fits them best. They've not broken any agreement by doing this, and it's even hard to argue it's unethical to try to maximize their profits. However taking away what they've been giving out for years is certainly not a gesture of good will on their part. What it will achieve in reality is that it will hamper players much more than it will generate revenue and CCP cannot be unaware of this. This step speaks volumes about their changing priorities.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 12:08:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Stormaar Where i can sighn online petition about saving "ghost training"?
You just signed one I believe.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 12:17:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ratio Legis on 14/10/2008 12:18:08
Originally by: Last Flower Of course it would be more fair and appreciated by CCP's customers if CCP would just say "cause we need money".
CCP do not need money, they want money. If they came here with this heart-breaking blog that explained in detail how they would go bankrupt if they didn't remove ghost training, I'm sure they'd find a much more supportive and understanding community response. It is clear however that it's not a case of need but of desire, and nobody likes to be screwed over for somebody else's optional financial gain.
Which, in this case, is more theoretical than practical, while the screwing over is substantial all over.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 12:39:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Simmith
Customer:
1. a person who purchases goods or services from another; buyer; patron.
Leech:
2. a person who clings to another for personal gain, esp. without giving anything in return, and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the other's resources; parasite.
The proposed change gets rid of leeches, not customers. Which are you?
A customer, definitely. Because the game mechanics as they are make sure I *do* give something in return, when I pay a subscription to reactivate the account to switch skills or actually use it, since none of us have alts just so we can capitalize on CCP's much-constrained database space. People are currently taking advantage of a helpful benefit, which is being removed. While nobody disputes CCP's ability to enforce this change, arguing that wanting to have use of the benefit is leeching is logically unsound. Arguing the change is somehow ethical is absurd.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 13:01:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Uoogla But seriously, I like this move. You have to pay for your skills to increase.
Why not take it to its logical conclusion then and allow people to buy skill points for real money? Or is that not in line with the notion of Eve providing a level playing field foe everyone regardless of their RL status?
The game is designed so that it hogs real time for training and in-game time for logistics much more than any other MMO out there - hence the benefit of having alts in Eve is much greater than in any other MMO. On the other hand, a single person can never utilize multiple accounts to their fullest, they are usually needed only for key activities and then are left unused. Taxing secondary accounts as primary ones has so far been offset by the availability of ghost training, but once that's gone the incentive to support alts will be reduced for just about everyone out there. I do not think it's fair to have us pay full price for a service that's designed so we cannot utilize it to the full potential.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 13:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx
Because every noob should start with carrier V trained right off the bat, am I right?
Eve's skillpoint and skill level system was designed that if you wanted to specialize, it was going to cost you time. Now you can't avoid it anymore.
Actually in the short term the effect will be the opposite. People will want to get rid of their unsupportable alts, and with the rise of supply the prices will drop. It will be much easier to get a char with Carrier V for a noob. Also, you can avoid spending time just as you used to - nothing has changed except the fact you need to pay for not using your alt while it's training.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 14:06:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Adam Slysphere
Originally by: Lord Fitz
If "playing" the game can be done without logging in, ever, the game is a failure.
Yup, and now they're fixing that and people are loosing their mind.
Nope, in order to keep training you need to pay for at least each second month.
Also, I find the timing of this change oddly fitting since it coincides with Blizzard's announcement how they want to make one Starcraft and charge for 3.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 14:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Adam Slysphere
Originally by: Ratio Legis
Nope, in order to keep training you need to pay for at least each second month.
And now you have to pay for every month ... This is kind of CCP's point and the proper way to run a business...
That would be a valid point if they had made game mechanics that would allow me to use all my accounts with equal efficiency. In the case when a single user cannot run all of his accounts in the same manner, why do you argue it's ok to be charged equally for all of them?
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 14:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Adam Slysphere If you're that strapped for cash, perhaps EVE should be way down on the priorities list?
And you are arguing that it's a good change that would prompt a person to reevaluate his RL priorities and realize he's actually too poor to support his hoby, while a week ago he was not?
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 14:45:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ratio Legis on 14/10/2008 14:45:14
Originally by: Adam Slysphere
Originally by: Ratio Legis
Originally by: Adam Slysphere If you're that strapped for cash, perhaps EVE should be way down on the priorities list?
And you are arguing that it's a good change that would prompt a person to reevaluate his RL priorities and realize he's actually too poor to support his hoby, while a week ago he was not?
I fail to see how this is impacting him ... If he was just running one account it's still going to be the same for him. And seriously, if he's that strapped for cash is running two accounts really that good of an idea?
I'm not trolling and I'm all for people having a hobby and what not. All I'm saying is that if someone is that strapped for cash than perhaps he should focus less on an internet spaceship game and put his money elsewhere. Am I wrong in suggesting that people spend their money on important things in life instead of a video game? lol
You mean you fail to see how upping the price of the service might affect a poor person to stop using the service? Because that's what just happened - CCP have announced how people need to pay more for getting the same thing. With the same justification you could argue that it's ok to double the subscription fee for everyone and the poor people can start paying for each second month, missing half the time. That's not how things work.
And yes, you are wrong suggesting that you know better than people how and where they should spend their time and money.
|
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 15:00:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aenemah
Originally by: Triksterism
Not everyone ghost trains their level 5's. However, it is a popular thing to do when people want to take a break from eve. People should have the option. It is what CCP promoted and it is what has attracted many people to the game.
This.
In fact I know a lot of long time players who ghost-train much and only return from time to time to check on the new toys they trained while they were away. For most of them returning to Eve is motivated almost solely by the ability to play around with new things until they get bored again and take another break. For such people having to pay full time for an account they only sporadically use would not be a viable option. I will not go as far to suggest that forcing them out of the game will amount to a huge financial loss to CCP since I have no idea how many such players there are out there, though if I had to hazard a guess I'd put most people who have stuck around since game launch in this category. However it is a factor to be considered. Personally I know I'd hate to see them gone from the game, at least not as a result of an unambiguous profiteering act by CCP.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 15:17:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Adam Slysphere
They're not upping the subscription fee, they're just closing a loop hole that players have been using to improve their characters without paying for the game. Which probably has gotten to be more of a problem since they started allowing characters to be bought and sold.
Hey you're right, I shouldn't be telling the guy what to do with his money. It's best not to try and help people by making a suggestion and let them be idiots and hurt themselves. I say remove the safety warning from all products and let Darwinism take over.
No matter if you call it a bug or a loophole, it used to be a fact in the game for 5 years and people were counting on it. With the "loophole" closed, you can do the exact same thing but you need to pay for it. If needing to pay more in order to get the same service is not upping the price, I don't know what is. If being able to skill up without paying til your current skill fills up is a loophole, how would you call forcing players to pay the full price of playing AND skilling up if they only need to do the passive skilling part? If they want to make players pay, then instituting a separate tariff for just skilling is a much more sensible solution.
And you are not putting a safety label here in this topic, you are basically telling people that if they are poor, they can go shove it since they have no place in Eve with its updated prices - which they have already figured for themselves with all the "zomg i quit" posts here.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 19:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Julius Rigel
Originally by: Catherine Frasier Microsoft documents the Blue Screen of Death in their Windows user guide, so by your logic the BSoD is advertised as a feature of Windows.
I'm so starting a threadnought at microsoft.com if they ever nerf bsod. Are you with me? Come on people!
If Microsoft came and told all the world the BSOD has in fact been an unintended feature all along and they never wanted to have or supported a mechanism for reporting critical errors to the user (which is the idea of the BSOD), then you'll see all the internet calling them on their bullshit, just as it happens here.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 19:58:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier In a manner that describes it as a feature? Where exactly was that?
Because it wasn't in the "known problems" section?
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 20:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lallante
Torfi said its an UNINTENDED FEATURE. Which amounts to the same as a bug. Not a bug. Hence documentation. Reread the post.
Unintended but supported feature, since CCP specifically made the distinction between Serenity - where they fixed that unintended feature - and Tranquility, where they chose not to. They have had it within their power to change it but have not, consciously and explicitly so, and have even made public that decision. That's as intended as it can go, no matter how a dev blog intended as PR smoke screen can try to represent things when they need an excuse.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 20:45:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier Sure people feel betrayed, duped, etc... What I don't recognize is that they have anything like a valid reason to feel that way.
And it never came into your mind that actually the moron might be you and not everyone else?
How about having the price of the service increased for no good reason, without sufficient prior warning and just after a promotion campaign that capitalized on the fact the price increase was not made public before it? Also, how about deceived and treated like halfwits by CCP's attempts at PR?
And, lastly, how about having to deal with trolls like yourself in a thread about an issue that's about as clear cut as it can ever get?
Maybe you should read that blog again yourself, especially the part where it says
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans Now I'm not saying that if me personally would be at the other end of this Dev Blog I wouldn't be annoyed by CCP's actions.
I guess he says that for nothing like a valid reason...
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 21:07:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Dire Radiant That it was a portrayed as a feature in the guide shows that it is not actually a bug at all.
No. It was an unintended feature which was, in effect, a bug. Documenting it doesn't change that.
Oddly enough, you still choose to conveniently ignore any comment contradicting that.
Let me illustrate to you exactly how unintended the feature is. You have this, like, a switch. It can turn the feature on or off. At the start you have the feature - maybe unintendedly - on, on both Tranquility and Serenity. Then you flip the switch on Serenity, but don't flip it on Tranquility, taking the time to explain to people who were alarmed that your switch might affect Tranquility too, that you are not in fact using it on Tranquility and that they should not make 130+ page threads because of that. You make it very clear to them that you consciously didn't flip your switch. Then some time later you come back, flip the switch and say "hey, last time I didn't intend to not flip the switch, it was an UNINTENDED FEATURE, but I'm fixing that now". And then you act surprised people yell "bullshit".
You can juggle with semantics til tomorrow, musing on whether documentation states intent for features described or not (though there's a place for unintended features in software documentation, usually called "known issues", and said feature wasn't listed under such heading), but once you start consciously supporting and publicizing your decision to keep a feature, you can no longer claim it's unintended.
So take your trolling, stow it somewhere and go annoy somebody else. This whole mess is bad enough without you helping.
|
Ratio Legis
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 15:04:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Grimnir
Originally by: altholder05 Acctualy it killed 1 of the best points for myself to play this game aswell as holding it up for my friends trying to make them join.
You mean the reason where you get the benefits of playing, without paying ?
Last time I checked "playing" required me actually logging in?
The price of the subscription includes the ability to log in and play AND the ability to skill up one character. So far people have had the option of skilling up without playing, now they need to pay the full price of skilling AND playing even if they don't want to do the latter. It seems reasonable and fair to have the option of a discount if you only intend to use a service partially, especially in the case where no special support is required on the part of the service provider. |
|
|
|