| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khun SP
Paramite Factories
   |
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:13:00 -
[91]
 Originally by: Elysa Gardner
As far purchasing a PLEX is considered as purchasing normal (instant) game-time all the logical scaffolding could be acceptable.
The fact is that buying a PLEX is NOT (imho) buying normal gametime but more buying an IN-GAME item that:
1 - Can be traded IN-GAME.
2 - Can be moved IN-GAME and consequently destroyed.
3 - Can be ACTIVATED and consequently converted in gametime. The obligation for CCP to provide a 30-days long gametime rises towards the PLEX owner as soon as the PLEX is activated and not a second before.
In the light of the foregoing is safe to assume that when you buy a PLEX you're buying an IN-GAME ITEM that is bound to IN-GAME items regulations and have an attitude to be converted in gametime if the owner wish.
If you want to purchase gametime do not buy PLEX, buy gametime.
TL;DR : No.
This lady wins 
|
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:14:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Maria Yumeno on 10/07/2010 11:15:43
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
OMG it never ceases to amaze me how DENSE people can be.
It's not about player risk, it's not about pirates ganking noobs. Those are accepted parts of Eve that have been around forever.
It's about the fact that EVERY TIME a PLEX is destroyed, CCP get AN EXTRA $15 IN THEIR COFFERS. $15 that never actually got converted into gametime. By making PLEX destroyable, CCP is, to say it harshly, stealing money from the playerbase.
It means they're getting paid without actually providing anyone with a service. It's a lowly marketing ploy by CCP. I can't believe people are actually falling for the "we don't want to give PLEX special treatment" bullsh*t. Come on guys, I thought Eve players were supposed to be smarter than the average gamer.
Very cynical but in essence kinda true. The community will be losing "potential" game time.
Originally by: Khun SP
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
As far purchasing a PLEX is considered as purchasing normal (instant) game-time all the logical scaffolding could be acceptable.
The fact is that buying a PLEX is NOT (imho) buying normal gametime but more buying an IN-GAME item that:
1 - Can be traded IN-GAME.
2 - Can be moved IN-GAME and consequently destroyed.
3 - Can be ACTIVATED and consequently converted in gametime. The obligation for CCP to provide a 30-days long gametime rises towards the PLEX owner as soon as the PLEX is activated and not a second before.
In the light of the foregoing is safe to assume that when you buy a PLEX you're buying an IN-GAME ITEM that is bound to IN-GAME items regulations and have an attitude to be converted in gametime if the owner wish.
If you want to purchase gametime do not buy PLEX, buy gametime.
TL;DR : No.
This lady wins
But we can not purchase game-time with isk
|
Winters Chill
Amarr
Shadow Legion.
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:17:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Winters Chill on 10/07/2010 11:17:40
Originally by: Aerilis
I thought Eve players were supposed to be smarter than the average gamer.
No they really arn't. They do have proportionally larger egos though.
|
Ressiv
Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:18:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
OMG it never ceases to amaze me how DENSE people can be.
QFT: Since the changes will not affect the current use of PLEX', your argument is moot, hence the truth in the part I quoted.
==========================
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
========================== |
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:20:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:23:30
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
By making PLEX destroyable, CCP is, to say it harshly, stealing money from the playerbase.
That's a big assumption. They're not stealing from anyone, PLEX ≠ gametime, everyone perfectly know the risks of buying an IN-GAME item and the risks of moving said IN-GAME item through space.
If you want to drag into the discussion the moral and ethical planes, they're not even followed in an internet spaceship game.
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
Edited by: Maria Yumeno on 10/07/2010 11:15:43
But we can not purchase game-time with isk
Correct, you can only purchase said IN-GAME item and all that follows.
--------
|
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:25:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
By making PLEX destroyable, CCP is, to say it harshly, stealing money from the playerbase.
That's a big assumption. They're not stealing from anyone, PLEX ≠ gametime, everyone perfectly know the risks of buying an IN-GAME item and the risks of moving said IN-GAME item through space.
If you want to drag into the discussion the moral and ethical planes, they're not even followed in an internet spaceship game.
Very true. But the bottom line is the player base will be losing something with this change when we needn't. What is fair or correct has nothing to do with it.
I'm a little confused why so many people are happy about this change when ccp are taking something away from the game without adding anything.
|
Ressiv
Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:33:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
I'm a little confused why so many people are happy about this change when ccp are taking something away from the game without adding anything.
Explain please, as this line, from my perspective, is false.
They add:
- an option that is at best useless regarding transporting them
- the option to redeem ETC's at ANY station, NPC or not
- the option to un-redeem at ANY station, NPC or not
- the option to put PLEX' in a courier contract
They remove:
- a restriction (so in a mathematical sence, this is adding too )
So, what is removed from the game again ?
==========================
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
========================== |
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:36:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
Very true. But the bottom line is the player base will be losing something with this change when we needn't. What is fair or correct has nothing to do with it.
I'm a little confused why so many people are happy about this change when ccp are taking something away from the game without adding anything.
I'm not happy nor unhappy, as you said fairness and correctness have nothing to do with it. I was just arguing why all this sounds legit and acceptable to me. We don't have to necessarily move PLEXes and if we want we have the tools to move them safely, we've just to pay attention to how we do it.
It sounds EVE style to me, regardless of CCP motivations.
--------
|
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:39:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Ressiv
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
I'm a little confused why so many people are happy about this change when ccp are taking something away from the game without adding anything.
Explain please, as this line, from my perspective, is false.
They add:
- an option that is at best useless regarding transporting them
- the option to redeem ETC's at ANY station, NPC or not
- the option to un-redeem at ANY station, NPC or not
- the option to put PLEX' in a courier contract
They remove:
- a restriction (so in a mathematical sence, this is adding too )
So, what is removed from the game again ?
an x number of plex' will be removed from the game every month due to peoples stupidity where that doesn't happen currently.
And before you say that is the stupid peoples loss and why should we care. It's because the player base then has access to less plex.
It is doubtful that it will have a big impact but it will still have some effect even limited. and it is certain to have a big effect for ccp.
|
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:40:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
Very true. But the bottom line is the player base will be losing something with this change when we needn't. What is fair or correct has nothing to do with it.
I'm a little confused why so many people are happy about this change when ccp are taking something away from the game without adding anything.
I'm not happy nor unhappy, as you said fairness and correctness have nothing to do with it. I was just arguing why all this sounds legit and acceptable to me. We don't have to necessarily move PLEXes and if we want we have the tools to move them safely, we've just to pay attention to how we do it.
It sounds EVE style to me, regardless of CCP motivations.
You don't care about the motivations of CCP? Or by what business ethics (or lack thereof) they operate by? I maybe enjoy a ruthlessly competitive cutthroat game, but I certainly don't want the developers of the game to actually be that way. The fact that it fits with the Eve style is no excuse for being unethical.
|
|
|
cBOLTSON
Caldari
Reaction Theory
Talos Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:55:00 -
[101]
This thread is pretty amusing.
When someone converts GAMETIME (ETC) to a plex they exchange any real life service into an in game item if im not too mistaken.
So lets see, people are going to want to move plex around to possiblly make extra iskies in say low/nullsec. Some of these plex`s are going to die. CCP makes a few more iskies in RL.
Also people, a plex is only around the 300m isk mark. There are a lot more expensive items in game lol.
|
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 11:55:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:56:22
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:55:59
Originally by: Aerilis
You don't care about the motivations of CCP? Or by what business ethics (or lack thereof) they operate by? I maybe enjoy a ruthlessly competitive cutthroat game, but I certainly don't want the developers of the game to actually be that way. The fact that it fits with the Eve style is no excuse for being unethical.
I can see when someone is able to manipulate my own greed against me. I can also see when someone use the rules of my very game for its own goals without changing them.
And it sounds okay to me, I'm not forced to move PLEXes nonetheless I can do that without being ganked if I pay attention, also I can live without using them. The immovable PLEX item was a safeguard against I don't know what? Speculation? Or people getting ganked or whatever?
Now this safeguard has been removed and this comes with advantages and disadvantages, at the very end a PLEX is an item and as any other item it can be destroyed, someone will lose ISKs someone will lose $$ but in any case for its own fault.
I'm fine with that, really.
--------
|
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:02:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:56:22
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:55:59
Originally by: Aerilis
You don't care about the motivations of CCP? Or by what business ethics (or lack thereof) they operate by? I maybe enjoy a ruthlessly competitive cutthroat game, but I certainly don't want the developers of the game to actually be that way. The fact that it fits with the Eve style is no excuse for being unethical.
I can see when someone is able to manipulate my own greed against me. I can also see when someone use the rules of my very game for its own goals without changing them.
And it sounds okay to me, I'm not forced to move PLEXes nonetheless I can do that without being ganked if I pay attention, also I can live without using them. The immovable PLEX item was a safeguard against I don't know what? Speculation? Or people getting ganked or whatever?
Now this safeguard has been removed and this comes with advantages and disadvantages, at the very end a PLEX is an item and as any other item it can be destroyed, someone will lose ISKs someone will lose $$ but in any case for its own fault.
I'm fine with that, really.
Still missing the point, I am also fine with the changes from a gameplay mechanic. Doesn't really affect me, I have absolutely no reason to undock with a PLEX. It just concerns me CCP would stoop so low.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:06:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
OMG it never ceases to amaze me how DENSE people can be.
It's not about player risk, it's not about pirates ganking noobs. Those are accepted parts of Eve that have been around forever.
It's about the fact that EVERY TIME a PLEX is destroyed, CCP get AN EXTRA $15 IN THEIR COFFERS. $15 that never actually got converted into gametime. By making PLEX destroyable, CCP is, to say it harshly, stealing money from the playerbase.
It means they're getting paid without actually providing anyone with a service. It's a lowly marketing ploy by CCP. I can't believe people are actually falling for the "we don't want to give PLEX special treatment" bullsh*t. Come on guys, I thought Eve players were supposed to be smarter than the average gamer.
This and the effects the player base in general not just the pirate and victim because the items is now removed the market.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
T'san Manaan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:09:00 -
[105]
Did you read the blog? CCP says they are trying to remove the perception that PLEX are "special".
So...no.
|
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:10:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Aerilis
Still missing the point, I am also fine with the changes from a gameplay mechanic. Doesn't really affect me, I have absolutely no reason to undock with a PLEX. It just concerns me CCP would stoop so low.
I'm not missing anything, I'm not concerned about CCP's actions nor they seems exceedingly low to me.
--------
|
Shakon
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:13:00 -
[107]
Not real sure on this one.
But it has the feel of Micro transactions but with a twist.Did ccp hire some Blizzard or Cryptic people?
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:15:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Edited by: Elysa Gardner on 10/07/2010 11:23:30
Originally by: Aerilis
Edited by: Aerilis on 10/07/2010 11:07:36
By making PLEX destroyable, CCP is, to say it harshly, stealing money from the playerbase.
That's a big assumption. They're not stealing from anyone, PLEX ≠ gametime, everyone perfectly know the risks of buying an IN-GAME item and the risks of moving said IN-GAME item through space.
If you want to drag into the discussion the moral and ethical planes, they're not even followed in an internet spaceship game.
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
Edited by: Maria Yumeno on 10/07/2010 11:15:43
But we can not purchase game-time with isk
Correct, you can only purchase said IN-GAME item and all that follows.
There is no assumption at all there. Although "taking" would be better than "stealing" as they arent breaking the law.
But yes this is just a simple in game mechanism to TAKE game time from the customer base.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:19:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Ghoest
But yes this is just a simple in game mechanism to TAKE game time from the customer base.
To be more precise they're taking an item that has the possibility to add game time. You don't necessarily buy PLEX to activate them... now.
--------
|
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:24:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Originally by: Ghoest
But yes this is just a simple in game mechanism to TAKE game time from the customer base.
To be more precise they're taking an item that has the possibility to add game time. You don't necessarily buy PLEX to activate them... now.
PLEXs are associated with gametime--there is no way around that fact, it is the sole reason for the existence of PLEXs. But technically, what you said is true, which is why CCP's actions aren't outright illegal but simply unethical.
|
|
|
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:27:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Elysa Gardner
Originally by: Ghoest
But yes this is just a simple in game mechanism to TAKE game time from the customer base.
To be more precise they're taking an item that has the possibility to add game time. You don't necessarily buy PLEX to activate them... now.
Yes, you do...or the final buyer does. They have no other purpose. Just because the item may have a string of middle-men doesn't take away from the fact that it is (eventually) used to add game time
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:29:00 -
[112]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 10/07/2010 12:29:26
Look at all the suicide gankers feeling griefed because CCP served them T-bone steak instead of fillet mignon .
Un-friggin'-believable.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:33:00 -
[113]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 10/07/2010 12:29:26
Look at all the suicide gankers feeling griefed because CCP served them T-bone steak instead of fillet mignon .
Un-friggin'-believable.
shoo troll.
I'd give u 1/10 because i actually replied
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:40:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
shoo troll.
I'd give u 1/10 because i actually replied
I must be a troll. I mean, I'm pointing out how CCP has given suicide gankers a chance to loot PLEX's, you know, as opposed to ZERO chance. Yes, I can definitely see how this is causing you poor little princesses grief and how that makes me the troll.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Aerilis
Gallente
Percussive Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:46:00 -
[115]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
shoo troll.
I'd give u 1/10 because i actually replied
I must be a troll. I mean, I'm pointing out how CCP has given suicide gankers a chance to loot PLEX's, you know, as opposed to ZERO chance. Yes, I can definitely see how this is causing you poor little princesses grief and how that makes me the troll.
I've been one of the loudest voices on the forum about this change since CCP announced it, and I'm NRDS. Check my killboard. Explain that will you?
|
Elysa Gardner
Humanware Technologies
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:47:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
Yes, you do...or the final buyer does. They have no other purpose. Just because the item may have a string of middle-men doesn't take away from the fact that it is (eventually) used to add game time
Stated that CCP is legitimate to get PLEXes blown up at the end the problem splits in two:
1 - Let CCP indirectly profit on destroyed PLEXes, and gankers profit on dropped PLEXes.
2 - Let gankers 100% profit on 100% dropped PLEXes.
I prefer the game consequences of point 1.
--------
|
Maria Yumeno
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:47:00 -
[117]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Maria Yumeno
shoo troll.
I'd give u 1/10 because i actually replied
I must be a troll. I mean, I'm pointing out how CCP has given suicide gankers a chance to loot PLEX's, you know, as opposed to ZERO chance. Yes, I can definitely see how this is causing you poor little princesses grief and how that makes me the troll.
Your post pointed out nothing. well, simply that anyone against the idea must be a suicide ganker.
|
Efraya
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:49:00 -
[118]
NO
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Spikes Chop Shop
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 12:56:00 -
[119]
NO
however, i would see it as very favorable if CCP would donate real money (or part of) worth for each PLEX destroyed to some worthy cause.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon." |
James Tritanius
|
Posted - 2010.07.10 13:23:00 -
[120]
YES
No matter how much do you guys parrot the idea that "if you don't undock with a plex in your cargo, everything would be the same!" there will always be stupid idiots that undock, get their ass ganked, and getting plexes destroyed in the process.
Sure, to THE VICTIM, there is nothing different from losing an item of the same market value than the plex itself. However, to THE PLAYER BASE, it just lost a plex, a promise from CCP to provide 30-days worth of service. Does CCP gain from this exchange? Yes, it does. It no longer have to provide that service.
CCP's decision was just to squeeze more money out of the player base, and they should tell it like it is.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |