EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Keep on hunting your enemies

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Keep on hunting your enemies

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Belloche Caldari NailorTech Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2011.04.04 13:53:00 - [31] Where are the stats for PLEX'es on the amount of them created vs the amount redeemed and the amount in game? That would give us all a better idea of the situation. It was in only one of the QENs so we know the stats are tracked. Players are losing faith and loyalty in CCP due previous expansions not living up to player expectations. The CSM and CCP agreed that expectation management can be improved
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:02:00 - [32] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:03:31 Originally by: StuRyan I think your completely irrelevent run along now recess is over. Now see, if you weren't one of those NC renters who was going to bear the brunt of the negative, from your alliance's perspective, fallout from this change, your angry opinion might have bore more scrutiny. Now if only your grammar wasn't so horrible, that would be a bigger improvement still. Unfortunately, your original point was so far off the mark, that it's nonsensical. Every PLEX created is income for CCP, no matter what is done with it from there. The increase in PLEX prices comes down to increasing amounts of ISK in player wallets and a subsequent increase in demand for PLEX by players who no longer need to bother shelling out $15 a month to keep an account or two going. If too many power-grinders can run accounts through PLEX, those players can conceivably suck up the PLEX supply, and reduce the number of players who can play via time codes, should the bar be raised too high. There is a word of mouth effect, that should not be ignored, in knowing that people who play the game well enough might not have to pay $15 a month out of pocket to play EVE Online. If that free to play mark becomes unreachable for all but the most potent of power gamers, that's a powerful piece of advertising down the drain.
missminer69	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:02:00 - [33] That would be a start and would, in my opinion, deepen the justification for nerfing null sec. (by the way i am totally against it, if we aren't already grinding enough) any how, i think the justification is this: Not enough supply of plex (plex being generated by someone buying gametime with real money) meaning when plex is brought to the market it is at price x, now if that plex is not bought the next PLEX with come on the market price x -0.01 for instance. But what is happening is PLEX is increasing which to me says there is too much demand.. too many people can pay for plex.
Ordais	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:09:00 - [34] The Supercapital number is just so over the top, and the progression is scary. 10 Titans per quarter more every quarter, where should this end? Ppl clearly cant keep up with the destruction of this beasts, never mind supercarriers or carriers/dreads... Where does this end i ask you? CCP even stated they dont see a problem with this.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:12:00 - [35] Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:03:31 Originally by: StuRyan I think your completely irrelevent run along now recess is over. Now see, if you weren't one of those NC renters who was going to bear the brunt of the negative, from your alliance's perspective, fallout from this change, your angry opinion might have bore more scrutiny. Now if only your grammar wasn't so horrible, that would be a bigger improvement still. Unfortunately, your original point was so far off the mark, that it's nonsensical. Every PLEX created is income for CCP, no matter what is done with it from there. The increase in PLEX prices comes down to increasing amounts of ISK in player wallets and a subsequent increase in demand for PLEX by players who no longer need to bother shelling out $15 a month to keep an account or two going. If too many power-grinders can run accounts through PLEX, those players can conceivably suck up the PLEX supply, and reduce the number of players who can play via time codes, should the bar be raised too high. There is a word of mouth effect, that should not be ignored, in knowing that people who play the game well enough might not have to pay $15 a month out of pocket to play EVE Online. If that free to play mark becomes unreachable for all but the most potent of power gamers, that's a powerful piece of advertising down the drain. What has where I play the game got anything to do with this? Can you not see that with less people paying for game time less plex are being generated and so the price will increase, thats basic Supply Demand. How was my orginial point far off the mark. Simply put, just for you, more people can pay for gametime via ISK due to the upgrades? Every Plex is income and that is not the point here look further down the line and stop being ignorant. more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less are being generated meaning less for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake. "If that free to play mark becomes unreachable for all but the most potent of power gamers, that's a powerful piece of advertising down the drain" - Exactly which is why this nerf needs more thought. Also you have been *****ing to me on the blog about the 0.0 nerf being good becuase it will increase conflict, that statement right there just shows how much of a troll you are.
Abdiel Kavash Caldari Paladin Order Fidelas Constans	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:16:00 - [36] The mere fact that the anomaly nerf is not mentioned in the QEN suggests that it has not even been thought of a month ago. CCP really did think that one through, didn't they. --- Originally by: Sporked EVE IS DYING RUN TO THE HILLS! WE MIGHT HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS MMO! THEY MIGHT SHOOT AT US WHILE WE ARE BUSY HOLDING HANDS AND FROLICKING! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:18:00 - [37] Originally by: StuRyan more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake. Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:21:00 - [38] Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:23:26 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:22:07 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:21:18 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake. Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP? It doesn't the fact is more people can play through ISK rather than using the credit card so said $17.50 becomes a loss only when THAT person can fund the game via ISK. My turn now, if everyone could fund via ISK what do you think would happen? - Answer will PLEX run out? What would happen if people could play for ISK and not need to pay $17.50 for it and hence no plex would be generated?
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:23:00 - [39] Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:21:18 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake. Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP? It doesn't the fact is more people can play through ISK rather than using the credit card so said $17.50 becomes a loss only when THAT person can fund the game via ISK. At what point does a PLEX enter the game that wasn't first paid for with cash?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:25:00 - [40] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:21:18 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan more People Play via ISK meaning less play via real money meaning less PLEX are being generated meaning the price of PLEX goes up which means there is more demand for the supply meaning less income for CCP, Deny that logic first and come back OK Cup cake. Would you be so kind to explain how each PLEX used, which are bought by credit card for $17.50 each, becomes a loss of income to CCP? It doesn't the fact is more people can play through ISK rather than using the credit card so said $17.50 becomes a loss only when THAT person can fund the game via ISK. At what point does a PLEX enter the game that wasn't first paid for with cash? Forgive me if im wrong but isnt plex generated when $17.50 is paid ?
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:27:00 - [41] Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:32:39 Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:31:35 Originally by: StuRyan Forgive me if im wrong but isnt plex generated when $17.50 is paid ? That's the only time the PLEX is generated, yes. Those PLEXes don't disappear until someone turns them into game time, which transforms the PLEX from an in-game asset into 30 days of account time. While the PLEX floats around in the game's list of assets, it's nothing more than game time that someone else bought in advance. Every account paid for in time codes is $2.50 more into CCP's coffers over the people who pay the flat $15.00 a month. At no point in this exchange does CCP lose money. At this point, your poorly articulated argument finally starts to make sense; if people don't pay for game time with Time Codes, CCP loses an extra margin of income. However, this ends up balancing out over time. 0.0 Dwellers are not the exclusive buyers of time codes, after all. The harder it is to make money in game, the more willing a more casual player becomes to shell out $35 for two PLEXes. The final cost of a PLEX in ISK only matters in relative proportion to the amount of ISK in the average player's wallet.
Last Wolf Umbra Wing	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:30:00 - [42] Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52 Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free. I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth. TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game you do realize that for someone to be able to "Play for free" someone ELSE has to spend money to buy that plex? AND buying that plex costs a good chunk more than someone subscribing to the monthly fee? CCP actually makes more money from people buying plex with isk. A lot of those players wouldn't play at ALL nor they would have as many alts if it wasn't for plex. Oh no you don't! Incoming witty reply, ETA: 300 seconds!
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:43:00 - [43] Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:46:12 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:45:06 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 14:43:42 Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:32:39 Edited by: Evelgrivion on 04/04/2011 14:31:35 Originally by: StuRyan Forgive me if im wrong but isnt plex generated when $17.50 is paid ? That's the only time the PLEX is generated, yes. Those PLEXes don't disappear until someone turns them into game time, which transforms the PLEX from an in-game asset into 30 days of account time. While the PLEX floats around in the game's list of assets, it's nothing more than game time that someone else bought in advance. Every account paid for in time codes is $2.50 more into CCP's coffers over the people who pay the flat $15.00 a month. At no point in this exchange does CCP lose money. At this point, your poorly articulated argument finally starts to make sense; if people don't pay for game time with Time Codes, CCP loses an extra margin of income. However, this ends up balancing out over time. 0.0 Dwellers are not the exclusive buyers of time codes, after all. The harder it is to make money in game, the more willing a more casual player becomes to shell out $35 for two PLEXes. The final cost of a PLEX in ISK only matters in relative proportion to the amount of ISK in the average player's wallet. Oh please, get off your throne and answer this, what would happen if a substantial amount of people could play the game via ISK?
Better Than You	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:44:00 - [44] That report looks shady to be honest. I think we found Greyscales dynamic duo. I guess we will have to take your word for it Dr. Eggnog? This is just more twisted words thrown at us to try and make us believe the anomaly nerf is needed. So sorry CCP, but not everyone playing your game is dumb enough to believe this pill of garbage your trying to shove down our throat. I must admit, it is a creative way to try and save Greyscales nerf to null sec. - Friendship will always trump the desire to fight!
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:52:00 - [45] Originally by: StuRyan Oh please, get off your throne and answer this, what would happen if a substantial amount of people could play the game via ISK? Since there is an upper limit on supply, if demand goes up, only the super-rich players will be able to pay for game time via PLEXes - thus leaving it in the hands of Tech 2 BPO holders, Alliance leaders, and particularly rich CEOs or players with no lives. There's a lot more ISK in the game than you seem to realize, and if too many people can pay for their time with ISK, a lot of people who come to the game with the idea of paying for that time with ISK stop showing up. Too much demand for PLEX and their prices reach new heights.
ChromeStriker	Posted - 2011.04.04 14:58:00 - [46] yay economicnessing
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:02:00 - [47] Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan Oh please, get off your throne and answer this, what would happen if a substantial amount of people could play the game via ISK? Since there is an upper limit on supply, if demand goes up, only the super-rich players will be able to pay for game time via PLEXes - thus leaving it in the hands of Tech 2 BPO holders, Alliance leaders, and particularly rich CEOs or players with no lives. There's a lot more ISK in the game than you seem to realize, and if too many people can pay for their time with ISK, a lot of people who come to the game with the idea of paying for that time with ISK stop showing up. Too much demand for PLEX and their prices reach new heights. Isn't that my argument? Demand of plex goes up less real money exchanged for gametime this equals the real reason behind 0.0 nerf. Now lets say more people are going to be paying for gametime through the route of real money what do you expect the price of PLEX to do then?
Evelgrivion Gunpoint Diplomacy	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:06:00 - [48] Originally by: StuRyan Isn't that my argument? Demand of plex goes up less real money exchanged for gametime this equals the real reason behind 0.0 nerf. Now lets say more people are going to be paying for gametime through the route of real money what do you expect the price of PLEX to do then? Wait, what?
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:08:00 - [49] Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:15:01 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:13:08 Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:09:37 Originally by: Evelgrivion Originally by: StuRyan Isn't that my argument? Demand of plex goes up less real money exchanged for gametime this equals the real reason behind 0.0 nerf. Now lets say more people are going to be paying for gametime through the route of real money what do you expect the price of PLEX to do then? Wait, what? READ what i WROTE, if more pay via real money what will plex do? For you: More PLEX being generated now there is an OVER supply. Play the game for free if your super rich? C'mon it doesnt take long to rat 280m for 30 day gametime. Thats not being rich. thats being smart. And the whole point to my argument is to say rather than try to pass the 0.0 nerf as some conflict spinner I'd would have understood a lot more that the game needs financing becuase too many are now able to pay for it via ISK. I suppose then it comes to this if PLEX reduces to a point where people can once again afford it will they nerf it even more.
Ms Michigan Gallente Aviation Professionals for EVE	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:27:00 - [50] Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52 Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free. I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth. TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game THIS
missminer69	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:30:00 - [51] Originally by: Ms Michigan Originally by: StuRyan Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 12:06:52 Having read page 6 I understand why there are changes being made to null sec. However, as a paying customer rather than to spew this off as a way to "increase conflict" i would have much preferred to read that PLEX is in considerable demand which has been the result of many people being able to upgrade space. ie Too many people can play the game for free. I understand why there needs to be control on who plays for free - afterall without paying customers EVE would sieze to exist. So next time the stability of the company is to question and it is down to gaming factors do us all a favour and tell us the truth. TL:DR Truth be told: Guys too many people are playing the game for free. We need to make these changes to reduce the amount of isk in the game THIS THIS x 2
Malovich Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:31:00 - [52] Originally by: StuRyan READ what i WROTE, if more pay via real money what will plex do? For you: More PLEX being generated now there is an OVER supply. Play the game for free if your super rich? C'mon it doesnt take long to rat 280m for 30 day gametime. Thats not being rich. thats being smart. And the whole point to my argument is to say rather than try to pass the 0.0 nerf as some conflict spinner I'd would have understood a lot more that the game needs financing becuase too many are now able to pay for it via ISK. I suppose then it comes to this if PLEX reduces to a point where people can once again afford it will they nerf it even more. You do realize that CCP probably prefers when people "pay" via PLEX, right? Income to CCP (In USD, exchange rates might make the values wonky in other currencies): PLEX-funded Subscription: $17.50/month Monthly Subscription: $15/month 3-Month Subscription: $14/month "Paying by ISK" is a poor presentation of how the system works. The way it actually works is Player A pays for Player B, who in turn gives Player A ISK. CCP collects real money regardless, and more of it in the case of PLEX.
Vincent Athena	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:31:00 - [53] Originally by: Batolemaeus Originally by: StuRyan Increasing number of plex being sold = more people able to generate gametime via ISK, Less wonga for CCP. simple edit: good indication is the increase in PLEX it self. I don't think you're qualified enough to post in this thread about spaceship economy. Every PLEX used by someone to play for free was created by someone else paying $17.50 to CCP.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:39:00 - [54] As more people can afford to play via ISK, when will they need to pay $17.50? The model assumes there is a constant supply of new accounts that need to pay $17.50 becuase they don't have the Skill to make the ISK to pay for PLEX.
Trin Javidan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:39:00 - [55] let me draw some conclusions in case u guys forgot: "This fits well with the cyclical behavior previously observed, where population and activity peak around expansions and then drop again in the time between" Is pvp/eve finally fixed in this patch, check check nope, and time to go awoll again.. "Once again, this quarter saw a relative increase in the proportion of users in null security space, as well as high security and wormhole space. This was at the expense of low security space, which saw a 0.27% decline in its share of the overall population. A year ago, the population of null security was 9.73% of the total and has since grown to 11.26%, a significant increase of 1.53% points." Not for long with anomaly nerf, u finally managed to get 0.0 more populated, i suggest u try to fix pvp now so that attracts more people to 0.0 instead of anomaly bears. I'm not talking about sov warefare, its boring and blobby/laggy eeww. "For the fifth quarter in a row, electronic attack ships were the least flown ship group." Check assembly hall for why that is (hint; note how many post are about it, would there be something wrong about it??) "The growth in the number of titans being flown had led to them surpassing the number of black ops, with 472 titans and 449 black ops being piloted." It's funny to see why so few minmatar titans and supercarriers are produced; (They obvious need fixing and it's not because of someone likes active tank or not, its cause of the weaknesses) "The bank has therefore proposed that in 2011 there should be a focus on increasing ISK sinks in order to curb potential inflation." How about fixing pvp so more stuff gets blown up? Combine this with a review of the T2 ME BPO needs and u can solve alot of problems at once. Solve the prom/dyspo/neo/thul/tech problem. Second make t2 recons/ hac's/ dicters/hic's/logi's (currently a avarage pvp ship cost 130 mil. Thats 130/ 40 = 3,25 hours or boring anomaly whoring) cheaper. Now people can buy more and care less about losing so more pvp = better isk sink (side effect; implants get lost more) "Things took a different turn in December. On December 14, the dreaded learning skills were removed, which involved refunding the skill points already used to train them. This brought in a considerable number of older players that had stopped playing. Frequently, these players found themselves in need of cash to quickly reestablish themselves, so many of them chose to create 31 Tech II prices were quite stable in the first two months of the quarter, rising by only 0.7% each month. As previously mentioned, the return of experienced players in December caused a spike in demand, which resulted in a 4.6% increase in the prices of Tech II ships and modules. Total produced mass of Tech II ships grew by 12.8% in December and reached 1.3 gigatons. This was, however, a reversal of a downward trend since August. From Q3 to Q4, Tech II ship production fell by 11%, from 4.1 gigatons to 3.6 gigatons. Figure 13: For most of the quarter, Tech II prices were stable. Increased demand in December pushed prices upwards. PLEXes and sell them on the market. Average daily PLEX creation grew by 18% from November to December." Imagin what happens when pvp ships gets a total overhaul "The interesting part here is that manufacturing has been moving away from low security space and null security space since 2007" Jumpfreighters
Rikki Sals Caldari	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:41:00 - [56] @StuRyan If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand. CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:49:00 - [57] Edited by: StuRyan on 04/04/2011 15:51:22 Originally by: Rikki Sals @StuRyan If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand. CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded. If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. and then it becomes an incredibly lucrative trade. My question is when someone buys time via real money where do the plex come from and are they given a price say the same as JITA prices?
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises R.A.G.E	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:50:00 - [58] Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 15:52:44 A weakening currency in a monetary exchange is a sign of inflation. Need to kill more botters. Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Rikki Sals @StuRyan If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand. CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded. If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. Also, this type of situation is impossible as supply and demand would balance that out. Everyone buying something and no one selling it is the infinite price point on a supply and demand graph. Why are we arguing about something as theoretical as that? This signature is useless, but it is red.
Durzel The Xenodus Initiative.	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:54:00 - [59] Posting in a different colour or font size confers a profound weight of intellect and credibility that you don't get by adhering to white-test conventions.
StuRyan	Posted - 2011.04.04 15:56:00 - [60] Originally by: Bagehi Edited by: Bagehi on 04/04/2011 15:52:44 A weakening currency in a monetary exchange is a sign of inflation. Need to kill more botters. Originally by: StuRyan Originally by: Rikki Sals @StuRyan If "everyone" in the game was paying their subs by buying PLEX with isk, that would mean a small group of people would have to be paying CCP hundreds of thousands of dollars each month to generate enough PLEX to meet that demand. CCP does not lose money from PLEX being traded. If everyone who played via plex no plex would generated. Also, this type of situation is impossible as supply and demand would balance that out. Everyone buying something and no one selling it is the infinite price point on a supply and demand graph. Why are we arguing about something as theoretical as that? It was just one extreme to the model of plex as i try to explain why i the true reason behind the nerf to 0.0 is to do with the fact that too many poeple can now play for free.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.