EVE Search - An honest question regarding "pay-to-win"

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

An honest question regarding "pay-to-win"

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 10:57:00 - [1] Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 10:57:28 Scenario A) I buy a plex with real money. I sell the plex on the market for ISK. I use the ISK to buy faction ammo, which is more powerful than regular ammo. Scenario B) I buy a plex with real money. I convert the plex to aurum. I use the aurum to buy hypothetical "gold ammo" which is more powerful than regular ammo. I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't?
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:02:00 - [2] Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Jint Hikaru OffWorld Exploration Inc	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:03:00 - [3] Edited by: Jint Hikaru on 27/06/2011 11:05:13 Senario A - the ammo has been created by players out of minerals and/or components mined and build by players. (And is avaliable to everybody) Senario B - You pay real money to CCP so they magiclly spawn super ammo in your hangar. The only way another player can get the same advantage you now have is by giving CCP $$$. --- Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum I can tell you that this is one of the moments when we look at what those at CCP will do and less of what they say.
Sanphesta	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:03:00 - [4] in scenerio b, it is likely that no player contributes materials to the making of the "gold" ammo. Sure there are ways around this, just like in the lp store (with faction items). The main reason why scenario a is ok and b is not.... Walking in stations sucks. I want my ship spinning back. Fix the damn game (the spaceship shooty shooty part) Also.... RAWWWRRR Also, Also... I like to ***** A lot A Whole lot that is all... or is it?
Johny Fuckkin Dango	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:03:00 - [5] Originally by: Tippia Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà yea cause enough people are going to buy golden ammo to **** up the economy
Katrina Cortez	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:03:00 - [6] Edited by: Katrina Cortez on 27/06/2011 11:06:38 Well the issue is that someone had to do something to get that ammo... they had to buy stuff from the market (a ship, weapons, etc) and play the game (pew pew rats) to acquire the faction ammo. This allows other people to play the game as well (pirates, gankers, etc)... CHART Ambulation... because spaceships don't have wallets.
Jerry Pepridge	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:04:00 - [7] Originally by: Tippia Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà Why do you care? its a button you don't have to press. _________________________________________________ Misty McGinnity Doesn't have an iPhone.
Maleficius Trucido	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:06:00 - [8] Edited by: Maleficius Trucido on 27/06/2011 11:07:13 because it stays in the game. With faction ammo, its made by players who either bought materials from miners or mined themselves. They got the ability to mine by flying big giant mining ships which were earned by grinding and getting skills. they obtained the blueprints from money they earned missioning or some other means. With buying items that come from some magic game store, it takes all that away. this will completly destroy the economy. Instead of people mining or missioning or building ships to obtain isk to buy ships from other people or whatever, you just poof... buy an item with real life money. Mineral price will plumet, components will plument, everything plumets, because there is no more demand for those items.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:06:00 - [9] Originally by: Johny **kin Dango yea cause enough people are going to buy golden ammo to ** up the economy Irrelevant. It bypasses the core mechanic of the game: the market. Originally by:** Jerry Pepridge Why do you care? its a button you don't have to press. Because it is enough that anyone presses that button for it to bypass the the market ù just because it's not me doing it doesn't mean that I'm not affected by it. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Katrina Cortez	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:09:00 - [10] Edited by: Katrina Cortez on 27/06/2011 11:10:04 If someone buys faction ammo with $ then someone isnt out farming it... thus affecting pew, pew and breaking the game mechanic. Ambulation... because spaceships don't have wallets.

Luna Nera	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:09:00 - [11] scenario a) you buy 10 battleships with a plex scenario b) a t-shirt will cost you 30 battleships
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 10:57:28 Scenario A) I buy a plex with real money. I sell the plex on the market for ISK. I use the ISK to buy faction ammo, which is more powerful than regular ammo. Scenario B) I buy a plex with real money. I convert the plex to aurum. I use the aurum to buy hypothetical "gold ammo" which is more powerful than regular ammo. I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? The way you present the issue makes them equal, however , B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't.
Siestre Vitale	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:13:00 - [13] Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:15:04 "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist, so i wouldnt worry to much
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:14:00 - [14] Originally by: Siestre Vitale "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so...
Zammo Bahrut Banana On A Plate	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:14:00 - [15] @Mercurius you copy pasted your irrelevant argument from one of a dozen identical "huurrrr derrr what is MT/P2W" threads, yet failed to read any of the responses to them? this thread... again. CCP- full of MT promises
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:15:00 - [16] Originally by: Siestre Vitale Scenario B doesnt exsist Scenario B doesn't have to be about "gold ammo" to create the same kind of problems. It can be anything, and not even vanity items are completely excluded from those issues. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:15:00 - [17] Cheers. Some good points, some incoherent points, but thanks for the discussion so far. Thanks Tippia in particular for the summary and the link. That thread must have got lost in the noise.
Gangotri XII	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:17:00 - [18] Originally by: Tippia Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà nicely put
Siestre Vitale	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:17:00 - [19] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Siestre Vitale "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so... did you not read the quote at all? here ill type it again for you... "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM
robbyx	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:17:00 - [20] Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:15:04 "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist, so i wouldnt worry to much They also promised multiple times MT would never be part of EVE in any way, they even mocked games that used it. They also promised that CQ would always be optional....starting to see a pattern here ?

Siestre Vitale	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:19:00 - [21] Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:20:09 Originally by: robbyx Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:15:04 "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist, so i wouldnt worry to much They also promised multiple times MT would never be part of EVE in any way, they even mocked games that used it. They also promised that CQ would always be optional....starting to see a pattern here ? jeeeezuz... READ before posting "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM And as far as CQ.. u can disable it no? thus making it OPTIONAL
RougeOperator	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:21:00 - [22] Originally by: Siestre Vitale Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Siestre Vitale "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so... did you not read the quote at all? here ill type it again for you... "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM Add the unspoken YET on to the end of that statment.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:22:00 - [23] Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 11:25:08 Originally by: Siestre Vitale did you not read the quote at all? here ill type it again for you... "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM Did you read his answer? ôWe do not have plans to go microtransaction with EVE.ö ôThere are no microtransaction plans, whatsoever.ö ôOur business model isn't changingö àand that turned out to be true, didn't it. Ohwait. Oh andà Quote: And as far as CQ.. u can disable it no? thus making it OPTIONAL Yeah, guess what? That's only a temporary measure. It's going to cease being optional. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:23:00 - [24] Originally by: Siestre Vitale Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Siestre Vitale Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so... did you not read the quote at all? here ill type it again for you... "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM "NEVER HAVE BEEN" is not equal to "NEVER WILL BE"
robbyx	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:20:09 Originally by: robbyx Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:15:04 "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist, so i wouldnt worry to much They also promised multiple times MT would never be part of EVE in any way, they even mocked games that used it. They also promised that CQ would always be optional....starting to see a pattern here ? jeeeezuz... READ before posting "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM And as far as CQ.. u can disable it no? thus making it OPTIONAL Are you trying to look like a complete moron, or does it just come naturally ? That little quote you posted...was almost the exact same line they used for MT. The CQ disable is only temporary...soon it will be mandatory...get it now dumba$$ ???
Siestre Vitale	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:25:00 - [26] Originally by: RougeOperator Originally by: Siestre Vitale Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Siestre Vitale "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so... did you not read the quote at all? here ill type it again for you... "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM Add the unspoken YET on to the end of that statment. well it seems that you just wanna moan about something thats actually non exsistent at this stage, so ill do what i do to my missus when she does the same and just say... "yes dear"
Demure Guise	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:26:00 - [27] Originally by: Johny **kin Dango Originally by: Tippia Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà yea cause enough people are going to buy golden ammo to ** up the economy It'll ** up the economy of players who are Miners and Industrialists. I think that's very wrong.
Jaigar	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:26:00 - [28] Edited by: Jaigar on 27/06/2011 11:27:53 Originally by: Maleficius Trucido Edited by: Maleficius Trucido on 27/06/2011 11:07:13 because it stays in the game. With faction ammo, its made by players who either bought materials from miners or mined themselves. They got the ability to mine by flying big giant mining ships which were earned by grinding and getting skills. they obtained the blueprints from money they earned missioning or some other means. With buying items that come from some magic game store, it takes all that away. this will completly destroy the economy. Instead of people mining or missioning or building ships to obtain isk to buy ships from other people or whatever, you just poof... buy an item with real life money. Mineral price will plumet, components will plument, everything plumets, because there is no more demand for those items. Wrong. Faction ammo is made by NPCs by exchanging LP,isk and t1 ammo for faction ammo. The volume of faction ammo produced has a neglible impact on the minerals market.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:26:00 - [29] Originally by: Tippia Because there's a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX is economy neutral; MT is not. PLEX uses the player market; MT circumvents it. There is a one word distinction between your two scenarios that makes all the difference in the world: in Scenario A, you say "I sell PLEX"; in Scenario B, you say "I convert PLEX", and that is where the game-altering things start to happenà This. It is also worth adding that CCP most like wants a plex sink, that's what aurum is. They take plex out of the game, which in turn puts the price of plex up for everyone, another issue for those without much RL cash to spare. Of course if CCP feel that enough plexes are not being removed, they could always make unique items that are only available thru nex, unable to be listed on the market or contracts, if those items affect performance/gameplay then that's another issue for players without wads of spare RL cash. This is hypothetical but then the question in the OP refers to a hypothetical future situation
Noddy Comet Caldari	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:27:00 - [30] Damn you CCP for not giving players a way to take ISK earned in-game and buy a PLEX then convert it to Arum! Why must the PLEX market be so one sid.. Oh, wait...

Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:28:00 - [31] Originally by: Siestre Vitale well it seems that you just wanna moan about something thats actually non exsistent at this stage Seeing as how MT was non-existent a year ago and there were no plans to go for them, and look at where we are todayà The non-existent, non-planned "gold ammo" seems like a good candidate to pre-emptively oppose. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Raavi Arda Minmatar Lone Lions Border World Enterprises	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:28:00 - [32] I guess you guys didn't get it yet. The writing is out there, on the wall in HUGE RED LETTERS and yet you still fail to see it. The whole buzz is NOT about miners/haulers/traders/whatever losing their jobs. That's a side effect - a VERY bad one but still a side effect. The real problem is buying SP for RL cash, buying standings for RL cash, buying OP ships/mods/ammo for RL cash. THIS is where AUR is heading towards. Pay to WIN. Buy AUR with your rich daddy's credit card, get OP ship and SP to use it, undock, kill, enjoy your meaningless victory little 12 YO troll. A 1-day-old toon with 60 mil SP: 200 USD A Scorpion with 8/8/8 slots, 20K base shields and 95% resists all across the board: 100 USD 2000 pieces of Noble Faction Cruise Missiles (base damage 20K omni per missile): 50 USD Monocle to look badass while killing: gratis! Meaningless victory against experienced player: priceless AUR: Some things CAN be bought with money, everything else too!
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Ri**ulo B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't. So it's not so much that I can pay to win (because I can already pay to win), it's more that hypothetically the only way I can win is if someone pays?
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:29:00 - [34] Originally by: Noddy Comet Damn you CCP for not giving players a way to take ISK earned in-game and buy a PLEX then convert it to Arum! Why must the PLEX market be so one sid.. Oh, wait... you should probs read my post above, note that AURUM (plex sink) will make plex more expensive and the increase in time to grind for it less worth it versus the RL cash just to buy it.... a problem
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:30:00 - [35] Originally by: Noddy Comet Damn you CCP for not giving players a way to take ISK earned in-game and buy a PLEX then convert it to Arum! Why must the PLEX market be so one sid.. Oh, wait... Again, there is a fundamental difference between PLEX and MT. PLEX being available on the market does not change this. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Siestre Vitale	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:30:00 - [36] Originally by: robbyx Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:20:09 Originally by: robbyx Originally by: Siestre Vitale Edited by: Siestre Vitale on 27/06/2011 11:15:04 "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist, so i wouldnt worry to much They also promised multiple times MT would never be part of EVE in any way, they even mocked games that used it. They also promised that CQ would always be optional....starting to see a pattern here ? jeeeezuz... READ before posting "THERE ARE NO AND NEVER HAVE BEEN PLANS TO SELL "GOLD AMMO" FOR AURUM And as far as CQ.. u can disable it no? thus making it OPTIONAL Are you trying to look like a complete moron, or does it just come naturally ? That little quote you posted...was almost the exact same line they used for MT. The CQ disable is only temporary...soon it will be mandatory...get it now dumba$$ ??? yup i stand corrected, sorry. however from what i gather isnt "golden ammo" the real community issue? (maybe im just not ready to give up on CCP just yet, after all they have done thus far)
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:31:00 - [37] Edited by: Rrama Ratamnim on 27/06/2011 11:32:58 The real problem with the gold ammo debate, even if gold ammo just = faction ammo that you converted regular ammo from like in LP store but instead of LP it was Aurum is ..... NEX IS EVERYWHERE the point of faction ammo is its hard to find, so rare or atleast semi-rare ... NEX would mean even in the **tiest back water nullsec system you could click "spawn gold ammo" and w00t you now have l33t supplies... this completely breaks the logistics of the game... I KNOW THEY SAID NO GOLD AMMO, but thats what this OP was talking about, but it comes down to the same issue when they talked about the nice painted scorpions that didn't require trading in a player built scorpion .... The builders ***ed that it would screw over the mineral cycle... but honestly the bigger problem especially in 0.0 is that if they had done that it would have been possible to spawn ships anywhere in nullsec even if they werent on the market... bypassing player economy and player logistics! Just my 2c so even if they did make it take regular ammo, getting faction ammo anywhere in the game at any instance breaks logistics flow in the game!
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:31:00 - [38] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Scenario A) I buy a plex with real money. I sell the plex on the market for ISK. I use the ISK to buy faction ammo, which is more powerful than regular ammo. Scenario B) I buy a plex with real money. I convert the plex to aurum. I use the aurum to buy hypothetical "gold ammo" which is more powerful than regular ammo. I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? A isn't ok with me but as we have A) I don't really mind B) either. Especially a SP for AUR shop. The only thing is that the B scenario shouldn't upset the economy too much. If they sell Ishukone Scorpions for 500 million, the impact will be very small. If they'd sell gold ammo that does 1% more damage for ridiculoius prices it's no big deal to me either.
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:31:00 - [39] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Ri**ulo B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't. So it's not so much that I can pay to win (because I can already pay to win), it's more that hypothetically the only way I can win is if someone pays? I guess that must be the problem people have with it. Can't see any other, can you?
Suvari Khashour	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:33:00 - [40] Plex is only a response to help combat RMT from 3rd party sources, and it works, the supply of Plex's is always lower than the actual demand, which is why the price of the things always seems to be increasing.. Plex's have to be purchased in the first place after all (or converted from GTC's) but as has already been stated, there are no plans to sell in game items other than vanity ones, no ammo, no ships, the only way these things can influence combat.. is the increasingly likely scenario of you being targetted by wearing them ... to me it looks like there are just a series of attempts to confuse the issue, likely by people who have a vested interest in doing so..

Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:33:00 - [41] Edited by: Portmanteau on 27/06/2011 11:34:09 Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Ri**ulo B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't. So it's not so much that I can pay to win (because I can already pay to win), it's more that hypothetically the only way I can win is if someone pays? not quite, atm P2W is nicely balanced with play for free, with a plex sink like AURUM, this balance will be shifted to P2W only (possibly) not forgetting the possibility that CCP can at any time make advantageous items AURUM exclusive then it's RL cash or lose (possibly) (trying to keep as hypothetical as poss here)
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:34:00 - [42] Originally by: Jint Hikaru Edited by: Jint Hikaru on 27/06/2011 11:05:13 Senario A - the ammo has been created by players out of minerals and/or components mined and build by players. (And is avaliable to everybody) Senario B - You pay real money to CCP so they magiclly spawn super ammo in your hangar. The only way another player can get the same advantage you now have is by giving CCP $$$. You didn't do your homework: The implementation of B as explained by CCP would ALSO require you to pay a base item in ADDITION to the AUR cost. Thus keeping the market impact exactly the same as with PLEX. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Suvari Khashour	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:35:00 - [43] There is only one type of Pay to Win in Eve.. .... you bribe your opponent to lose.... end of
Raavi Arda Minmatar Lone Lions Border World Enterprises	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:36:00 - [44] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Ri**ulo B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't. So it's not so much that I can pay to win (because I can already pay to win), it's more that hypothetically the only way I can win is if someone pays? You CANNOT pay to win now because you can only buy SAME things as anyone else - those who pay with RL cash as well as those who pay with ISK and/or just grind for stuff. Definition of pay to win: give us cash and we'll give you an invincible ship that will WTFPWN everything that wasn't bought for $$$.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:37:00 - [45] Would be interesting seeing the reaction when 0.0 alliances start asking for $10 monthly subs to stay competitive :)
Tla Atij	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:38:00 - [46] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 10:57:28 Scenario A) I buy a plex with real money. I sell the plex on the market for ISK. I use the ISK to buy faction ammo, which is more powerful than regular ammo. Scenario B) I buy a plex with real money. I convert the plex to aurum. I use the aurum to buy hypothetical "gold ammo" which is more powerful than regular ammo. I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? I used to make this mistake too, thinking A is the same as B. It has to do with injecting items into the game. In the past the only use for PLEX was increasing game-time. So when CCP injected PLEX from the real world into your hangar, it would have eventually disappeared when someone used it to extend their subscription. Hence why people say PLEX is market-neutral. A PLEX would be trade from player to player until eventually it would be used up and be removed from game. Now when CCP injects a PLEX into your hangar, it's not necessarily removed from game anymore. You can make it into real items, items with an ISK value, and put those items on the in-game market. Therefore PLEX isn't market neutral anymore because it allows out-of-game items to be injected into the in-game market. From thin air, into the sandbox, thus ruining the concept of the sandbox by putting external pressure (injected items) on its economy.
Rrama Ratamnim	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:38:00 - [47] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Jint Hikaru Edited by: Jint Hikaru on 27/06/2011 11:05:13 Senario A - the ammo has been created by players out of minerals and/or components mined and build by players. (And is avaliable to everybody) Senario B - You pay real money to CCP so they magiclly spawn super ammo in your hangar. The only way another player can get the same advantage you now have is by giving CCP $$$. You didn't do your homework: The implementation of B as explained by CCP would ALSO require you to pay a base item in ADDITION to the AUR cost. Thus keeping the market impact exactly the same as with PLEX. Correction dude, CCP said when it came to the scorpion thing that for now it would be AUR only and eventually they'd fix it to items + aur ... or they asked if the player base was ok with that roll out and everyone through a fit over it... rightly so as it would have bypassed the mineral cycle, as well as logistics especially to nullsec
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:38:00 - [48] Something CCP wrote makes things more or less leveled: Real money->PLEX->AUR->items->ISK->PLEX So, gold or whatever items WILL make their way to the isk market. If need exists supply will appear.
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:39:00 - [49] Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 11:41:51 Originally by: Raavi Arda A 1-day-old toon with 60 mil SP: 200 USD A Scorpion with 8/8/8 slots, 20K base shields and 95% resists all across the board: 100 USD 2000 pieces of Noble Faction Cruise Missiles (base damage 20K omni per missile): 50 USD Monocle to look badass while killing: gratis! Meaningless victory against experienced player: priceless I could, right now, get out my credit card and buy enough plex to buy any ship I want, and a pilot to fly it. Of course, I'd get exploded anyway because I'm a big noob, but that's besides the point. You can already pay to win. Your argument is precisely the one I was addressing in my OP. Even if they add gold ammo, you could still buy a plex with isk, convert to aurum, and buy the gold ammo. (ofc, the difference Tippia etc are arguing is that gameplay-MT bypass the player economy, and that's bad because the player economy is the only reason this game works. I haven't decided whether I agree, but it's certainly a coherent point)
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:40:00 - [50] Originally by: Ri**ulo The way you present the issue makes them equal, however , B scenario forces "someone" to pay real money for it while A doesn't. Lol. Wrong. Both A & B requires someone to buy a PLEX. You create a PLEX form ISK alone, that trick takes RL cash allways. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf

Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:40:00 - [51] Originally by: Ri**ulo Something CCP wrote makes things more or less leveled: Real money->PLEX->AUR->items->ISK->PLEX So, gold or whatever items WILL make their way to the isk market. If need exists supply will appear. Plex ---> AURUM = Plex removed from game = plex price ^^^
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:43:00 - [52] Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 11:47:09 Originally by: Qual Lol. Wrong. Both A & B requires someone to buy a PLEX. You create a PLEX form ISK alone, that trick takes RL cash allways. Yeah, but in A the plex isn't destroyed. In isolation, I don't care, because I already paid to win. In a larger sense, though, in A) somebody paid money to CCP and somebody got game time, and in B) somebody paid money to CCP and somebody got win. (in my scenario B, the somebodies are both me) Makes sense to me. Still not sure if I mind, but it makes sense.
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:43:00 - [53] Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Ri**ulo Something CCP wrote makes things more or less leveled: Real money->PLEX->AUR->items->ISK->PLEX So, gold or whatever items WILL make their way to the isk market. If need exists supply will appear. Plex ---> AURUM = Plex removed from game = plex price ^^^ Ah, but i sell item for isk profit compared to plex and rebuy plex making proffit. So it will eventualy level out plex price. Or i mean, oscillate with an average of zero.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:47:00 - [54] Originally by: Tla Atij Now when CCP injects a PLEX into your hangar, it's not necessarily removed from game anymore. You can make it into real items, items with an ISK value, and put those items on the in-game market. Therefore PLEX isn't market neutral anymore because it allows out-of-game items to be injected into the in-game market. From thin air, into the sandbox, thus ruining the concept of the sandbox by putting external pressure (injected items) on its economy. Yet Veldspar, Rats & Moon materials spawn each day, and noone cries about that. No, its not not neutral. It doesn't need to be. The impact is silly small as long as we talk vanity items. Its mostly equal to the stockpileing of PLEX that is currently going on, which really have no significance in the overall picture. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:47:00 - [55] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Ri**ulo Something CCP wrote makes things more or less leveled: Real money->PLEX->AUR->items->ISK->PLEX So, gold or whatever items WILL make their way to the isk market. If need exists supply will appear. Plex ---> AURUM = Plex removed from game = plex price ^^^ Ah, but i sell item for isk profit compared to plex and rebuy plex making proffit. So it will eventualy level out plex price. Or i mean, oscillate with an average of zero. no. before AURUM plex conversions always balanced with game time, no matter what steps where involved before, so at some point some player will always redeem game time for them. this keeps them balanced and the price reasonably stable. when a player buys AURUM with a plex, no gametime is redeemed for that plex but that plex is now gone. The cost of gametime thru plexes increases due to their scarcity.
Jennifer Starling Imperial Navy Forum Patrol	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:47:00 - [56] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Qual Lol. Wrong. Both A & B requires someone to buy a PLEX. You create a PLEX form ISK alone, that trick takes RL cash allways. Yeah, but in A the plex isn't destroyed. A) the player who buys your PLEX saves him/herself 1 month of subscription; B) CCP gets it all.
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:49:00 - [57] Originally by: Jennifer Starling A) the player who buys your PLEX saves him/herself 1 month of subscription; B) CCP gets it all. Yep, makes sense. I still don't think I mind, but I understand why other people do much better than before I posted.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:50:00 - [58] Originally by: Qual Yet Veldspar, Rats & Moon materials spawn each day, and noone cries about that. That's because they are constrained by the supply balancing mechanics that are built into the in-game economy, which are counter-balanced by sinks that are built in to remove those items. None of the sort exist for MT items. Quote: No, its not not neutral. It doesn't need to be. The impact is silly small as long as we talk vanity items. àbut vanity items or not, MT still injects value into the economy at demand without any of the balancing mechanics that regulate the flow of normal items. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:52:00 - [59] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 11:47:09 Originally by: Qual Lol. Wrong. Both A & B requires someone to buy a PLEX. You create a PLEX form ISK alone, that trick takes RL cash allways. Yeah, but in A the plex isn't destroyed. It will be, thats why it has value. Doesn't matter when. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:52:00 - [60] Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Jennifer Starling A) the player who buys your PLEX saves him/herself 1 month of subscription; B) CCP gets it all. Yep, makes sense. I still don't think I mind, but I understand why other people do much better than before I posted. If you are not a wealthy credit card wielding player and the price of plexes and in turn advantageous items from the NEX (considerd in isk ofc) goes up then it is of concern

Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:52:00 - [61] Originally by: Portmanteau no. before AURUM plex conversions always balanced with game time, no matter what steps where involved before, so at some point some player will always redeem game time for them. this keeps them balanced and the price reasonably stable. when a player buys AURUM with a plex, no gametime is redeemed for that plex but that plex is now gone. The cost of gametime thru plexes increases due to their scarcity. erm...Actualy you are kind of maybe right. Unless people start spending more to specifically buy AUR items. That way where only one plex would be bought, two are now purchased with real money. In a way right or wrong, only time will tell.
Pace eGuerra	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:55:00 - [62] Originally by: Jint Hikaru Edited by: Jint Hikaru on 27/06/2011 11:05:13 Senario A - the ammo has been created by players out of minerals and/or components mined and build by players. (And is avaliable to everybody) Senario B - You pay real money to CCP so they magiclly spawn super ammo in your hangar. The only way another player can get the same advantage you now have is by giving CCP $$$. To a point but not entirely true. Items are built from elements which are spawned by CCP; moons, asteroids, rats... all this is another spawn of interesting stuff. And before you say "Yes, but we can acquire that stuff and sell it on or re-purpose it" just remember that trading NEX items is going to be big business once the NEX has useful stuff in it. Want to buy a 100m ISK item from the NEX but don't want to spend real $$$$ or convert 400m ISK to PLEX in the process? Sure, no problem, somebody just bought stuff from the NEX and is now selling it on the market for a profit... NO different to mining minerals and selling them for a profit. CCP spawn stuff, we resell it for profit. Really, there is no argument. This is the future, embrace or leave. :) Now can we get back to the most important thing: the disembark button and the whole concept of not leaving our pods when we dock unless we choose to. "Disable CQ" is not a viable long term option. :)
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:56:00 - [63] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Portmanteau no. before AURUM plex conversions always balanced with game time, no matter what steps where involved before, so at some point some player will always redeem game time for them. this keeps them balanced and the price reasonably stable. when a player buys AURUM with a plex, no gametime is redeemed for that plex but that plex is now gone. The cost of gametime thru plexes increases due to their scarcity. erm...Actualy you are kind of maybe right. Unless people start spending more to specifically buy AUR items. That way where only one plex would be bought, two are now purchased with real money. In a way right or wrong, only time will tell. yeah it's all quite hypothetical and subject to intricacies we can't possibly determine, the only thing we can be sure of is that AURUM will cause plex price to increase (whether other things will cause it to go down I'm not saying, just talking about AUR in isolation here)
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:58:00 - [64] Edited by: Qual on 27/06/2011 12:06:08 Originally by: Portmanteau If you are not a wealthy credit card wielding player and the price of plexes and in turn advantageous items from the NEX (considerd in isk ofc) goes up then it is of concern Edit: Wrong post is wrong... "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 11:58:00 - [65] Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 12:03:24 I'll just plaster this one here as wellà Note in particular the imbalance between the inputs and the outputs of the item part of the marketà Originally by: Qual The primary goal of PLEX is to fight RMT. If the price goes up it will loose that effect. Look for CCP to bring prices down ASAP if that happens. If PLEX prices go up, they will be even more attractive as an alternative to (third-party) RMT, so they won't do it for that reason. Instead, they'd do it because if they go too high, they risk losing active accounts as PLEX-users can no longer afford to keep their accounts going. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Ami Quintero	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:01:00 - [66] Originally by: Qual The primary goal of PLEX is to fight RMT. If the price goes up it will loose that effect. Look for CCP to bring prices down ASAP if that happens. I should think if the price goes up it will be more effective against RMT.
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:03:00 - [67] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 12:00:36 I'll just plaster this one here as wellà Note in particular the imbalance between the inputs and the outputs of the item part of the marketà I inject real money to the game, buying plex, because i want isk. Will my need for such isk decrease with the introduction of AUR items? CCP must have figured out that it won't (dunno if it will or not).
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:05:00 - [68] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 12:00:36 I'll just plaster this one here as wellà Note in particular the imbalance between the inputs and the outputs of the item part of the marketà Originally by: Qual The primary goal of PLEX is to fight RMT. If the price goes up it will loose that effect. Look for CCP to bring prices down ASAP if that happens. If PLEX prices go up, they will be even more attractive as an alternative to (third-party) RMT, so they won't do it for that reason. Instead, they'd do it because if they go too high, they risk losing active accounts as PLEX-users can no longer afford to keep their accounts active. First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. Second, my bad. It's been a long day. You are right there. CCP wants PLEX to be worth more ISK as an incentive to get them. Bleh... "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:06:00 - [69] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 12:00:36 I'll just plaster this one here as wellà Note in particular the imbalance between the inputs and the outputs of the item part of the marketà I inject real money to the game, buying plex, because i want isk. Will my need for such isk decrease with the introduction of AUR items? CCP must have figured out that it won't (dunno if it will or not). you inject gametime into game buying plex for isk, you inject rl money into CCP buying AUR
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:08:00 - [70] Originally by: Qual First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. I dont get this. Wont it be exchange plex for AUR and buy item with AUR? What other items will be in need? Will it be "Ship + AUR" to buy "Golden Ship"?

Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:09:00 - [71] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Qual First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. I dont get this. Wont it be exchange plex for AUR and buy item with AUR? What other items will be in need? Will it be "Ship + AUR" to buy "Golden Ship"? Bonus point to you. Yes! "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:11:00 - [72] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Qual First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. I dont get this. Wont it be exchange plex for AUR and buy item with AUR? What other items will be in need? Will it be "Ship + AUR" to buy "Golden Ship"? Bonus point to you. Yes! yes but golden ship worth (insert random factor here) times more than ship from market used in exchange, therein lies a problem
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:11:00 - [73] Originally by: Qual First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. Actually, no they didn't, which is why they had to be shouted down form letting it go live before iterating on the NeX store to make that possible. Moreover, it currently includes items that have no "existing market item", so those act as direct injection of completely new items. And finally, even for the items that, in the future, eat up items in the production process, the NeX still injects additional value into the market through that AUR conversion process (indeed, that is the whole point of that process). ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:11:00 - [74] Originally by: Portmanteau you inject gametime into game buying plex for isk, you inject rl money into CCP buying AUR So if they are not injecting more gametime into EVE that means they do not actualy want more players. They want to increase their revenue with the existing player base making them pay more for what already exists. Is that what you are saying? Interesting.
Hekira Soikutsu	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:12:00 - [75] Edited by: Hekira Soikutsu on 27/06/2011 12:13:25 Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Siestre Vitale "However, just to prove the point of the Fearless newsletter and give you a further understanding of what it is then there are no and never have been plans to sell "gold ammo" for Aurum." -CCP Zulu Scenario B doesnt exsist Well, a year ago there where no plans for MT, so... They say no gold ammo. Gold ships and meta level 25 modules anyone? EDIT Haha failprofanityfilter
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:13:00 - [76] Originally by: Qual Bonus point to you. Yes! I didn't actually see that anywhere and so i asked. Can you direct me to where this exchange is mentioned? Really would like to read it.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:17:00 - [77] Edited by: Portmanteau on 27/06/2011 12:17:35 Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Portmanteau you inject gametime into game buying plex for isk, you inject rl money into CCP buying AUR So if they are not injecting more gametime into EVE that means they do not actualy want more players. They want to increase their revenue with the existing player base making them pay more for what already exists. Is that what you are saying? Interesting. I'm not saying anything like that just pointing out that you are not injecting money into the game (presumably you mean CCP) by buying plex for isk, that plex will be redeemed for gametime (CCP is borrowing the money until this happens), something that will not happen if you buy plex for AUR, there is a difference
Cpt Fina Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:24:00 - [78] Originally by: Mercurius Steele I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? A isn't ok with everybody. Alot of people were very vocal about the official advocacy of the first plex system back in the day. This IS pay-to-win. Microtransactions couuld merely be an extension of an old policy. I guess the people that didn't complain about it way back when are too butthurt to admit this... or they try to deflect attention away from the similaritiess of the two systems.
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:25:00 - [79] Originally by: Portmanteau I'm not saying anything like that just pointing out that you are not injecting money into the game (presumably you mean CCP) by buying plex for isk, that plex will be redeemed for gametime (CCP is borrowing the money until this happens), something that will not happen if you buy plex for AUR, there is a difference Ok, i get your point that PLEX prices will go up. ('ll wait and see) That will not affect subscribing player will it? It will only reflect on those of us who play for free. Shouldn't we allow CCP to get something out of our free game time?
Race Drones 13th Squadron E C L I P S E	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:33:00 - [80] Edited by: Race Drones on 27/06/2011 12:34:00 Originally by: Mercurius Steele Edited by: Mercurius Steele on 27/06/2011 10:57:28 Scenario A) I buy a plex with real money. I sell the plex on the market for ISK. I use the ISK to buy faction ammo, which is more powerful than regular ammo. Scenario B) I buy a plex with real money. I convert the plex to aurum. I use the aurum to buy hypothetical "gold ammo" which is more powerful than regular ammo. I'm not defending CCP (personally I don't care, but I know many of you guys do), I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? The faction ammo come from players, if your choice is to buy gold ammo, then these players go to be ruined, boring, then leave the game. ----- EVE Online is a Bad Game that the Players make Good.

Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:35:00 - [81] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual First the drawing is wrong. Any item comparable to an existing market item will have that base item as input besides AUR. CCP did think this part through. Actually, no they didn't, which is why they had to be shouted down form letting it go live before iterating on the NeX store to make that possible. Moreover, it currently includes items that have no "existing market item", so those act as direct injection of completely new items. And finally, even for the items that, in the future, eat up items in the production process, the NeX still injects additional value into the market through that AUR conversion process (indeed, that is the whole point of that process). So does PLEX. The only way to create any value in EvE is to play the game. PLEX = playtime = value. So if playtime is not used to play, it can still be allowed to create value into the economy without breaking it. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:35:00 - [82] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Portmanteau I'm not saying anything like that just pointing out that you are not injecting money into the game (presumably you mean CCP) by buying plex for isk, that plex will be redeemed for gametime (CCP is borrowing the money until this happens), something that will not happen if you buy plex for AUR, there is a difference Ok, i get your point that PLEX prices will go up. ('ll wait and see) That will not affect subscribing player will it? It will only reflect on those of us who play for free. Shouldn't we allow CCP to get something out of our free game time? It would most likely affect free players first but it would also affect subs players who couldn't afford to pay more if P2W items become very expensive. It all depends on people's personal determination of when the level of grind required for plex is no longer worth it over RL money. For some with decent jobs etc, that level is very low and they will reach for the credit card sooner than others, for those with little spare cash the level is very high, but at some point, it becomes so high that the effort required is just not worth it and they have to make a decision on whether to spend money they don't have or lower their expectations in game.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:47:00 - [83] Originally by: Qual So does PLEX. The only way to create any value in EvE is to play the game. PLEX = playtime = value. So if playtime is not used to play, it can still be allowed to create value into the economy without breaking it. Read the thread I keep linking to. Basically, no PLEX doesn't create any value ù it is just an option to call in a 30d game time debt. Once that option is exercised, the PLEX is removed from the economy. The problem with NeX is that it provides another option: to get 3,500 AUR. If you go for that option, you have suddenly created value out of nowhere (wellà out of $$, which is the same thing from an in-game perspective). PLEXes only ever flow straight through the economy; AUR items do not ù they add to it. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:48:00 - [84] Originally by: Portmanteau It would most likely affect free players first but it would also affect subs players who couldn't afford to pay more if P2W items become very expensive. It all depends on people's personal determination of when the level of grind required for plex is no longer worth it over RL money. For some with decent jobs etc, that level is very low and they will reach for the credit card sooner than others, for those with little spare cash the level is very high, but at some point, it becomes so high that the effort required is just not worth it and they have to make a decision on whether to spend money they don't have or lower their expectations in game. PLEX does not sink nor create ISK. PLEX cant go higher in price than what someone is willing to pay for it. The working man who buys ISK, wont get more for that PLEX than what the free player can/wants to pay. The free player here is the one creating the ISK value. If he does not play, there is no value to buy. Of course this is moch more complex as there is a large majority of players who is simply subscribers. If PLEX price gets to low they will buy time to skip sub payments, if it get high, they might cut the occational corner and buy a PLEX to sell. Thus the system remains self balancing. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:53:00 - [85] Originally by: Tippia Read the thread I keep linking to. Basically, no PLEX doesn't create any value ù it is just an option to call in a 30d game time debt. Once that option is exercised, the PLEX is removed from the economy. Of course it creates value. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! If noone plays, no value enters the game. The avarage 30 days of playing time will generate a quite specific ammount value into the game. I am sure the good econmy dr could tell you the exact number by heart, as that is one of the most important key numbers in eve. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:56:00 - [86] Originally by: Qual Of course it creates value. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! If noone plays, no value enters the game. That value isn't created by the PLEX, though. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 12:58:00 - [87] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Portmanteau It would most likely affect free players first but it would also affect subs players who couldn't afford to pay more if P2W items become very expensive. It all depends on people's personal determination of when the level of grind required for plex is no longer worth it over RL money. For some with decent jobs etc, that level is very low and they will reach for the credit card sooner than others, for those with little spare cash the level is very high, but at some point, it becomes so high that the effort required is just not worth it and they have to make a decision on whether to spend money they don't have or lower their expectations in game. PLEX does not sink nor create ISK. PLEX cant go higher in price than what someone is willing to pay for it. The working man who buys ISK, wont get more for that PLEX than what the free player can/wants to pay. The free player here is the one creating the ISK value. If he does not play, there is no value to buy. Of course this is moch more complex as there is a large majority of players who is simply subscribers. If PLEX price gets to low they will buy time to skip sub payments, if it get high, they might cut the occational corner and buy a PLEX to sell. Thus the system remains self balancing. never said plex creates isk, why you putting words in my mouth ? As to your next statement, it's true that plex will go as high as someone is willing to pay, but you are forgetting that AUR removes plex from the system so that price will go up at least somewhat and will be bought by richer players leaving poorer players in the cold. Your example assumes limitless plexes and is completely erroneous as a result. Subs players who do not normally buy plex will also increase the demand for plex when NEX store items convert them to new plex buyers, this is exactly what CCP wants... to increase it's conversion rate of subs only/free players to plex for AUR buyers... you really haven't though this thru very well have you. CCP wants a plex sink so they don't have all that gametime owed hanging over their heads, the way they will do this is by removing as many plexes as possible thru AUR sales. Plexes could be in short supply indeed depending on their success at converting us to NEX shoppers
Narisa Bithon Caldari The Motley Crew Reborn	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:01:00 - [88] they only solution to MT for advantage i can see is that player should be allowed sell all items in isk or aurum. that way if a player buys "golden ammo" another player benefits from it cos the "golden ammo" was sold by a player not ccp.
Rysdan Phar	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:03:00 - [89] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/06/2011 12:03:24 I'll just plaster this one here as wellà Note in particular the imbalance between the inputs and the outputs of the item part of the marketà Originally by: Qual The primary goal of PLEX is to fight RMT. If the price goes up it will loose that effect. Look for CCP to bring prices down ASAP if that happens. If PLEX prices go up, they will be even more attractive as an alternative to (third-party) RMT, so they won't do it for that reason. Instead, they'd do it because if they go too high, they risk losing active accounts as PLEX-users can no longer afford to keep their accounts going. lol your diagram looks oddly like a big toilet..... seems very like the way eve online is about to go.
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:04:00 - [90] I can't see any theories that are more valid than others. All things being equal, the future is uncertain but it doesn't appear to me that AUR could destroy EVE as we know it.

Uuali	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:05:00 - [91] Edited by: Uuali on 27/06/2011 13:06:13 What part of "Game changing mechanics" don't you understand. PLEX is still a component of a player driven mechanic. MT will change that to a simple, direct sale via CCP. The implications go far beyond the notion of buy a bigger gun, win game. The more an MT based mechanic is introduced to the game the less CCP actually has to develop anything other than more items. The game will become more about just buying items to get ahead than to enjoy new improved features. I buy PLEX. I don't have the time or energy to grind in this game to get stuff. But that PLEX goes for a lot of different things and actually helps me to get up to par with the people who don't want to spend real money but have the same stuff nonetheless. And I'm buying stuff that other players made and are also benefiting from. These items are far more reasonably priced than what CCP has shown they are comfortable with charging for MT stuff. It is more about what people don't want to spend money on than what they have to in order to play the game. MT will increasingly force a must pay system and the player economy (i.e. trading, manufacturing) will become merely fluff with no real significance.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:05:00 - [92] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Tippia Read the thread I keep linking to. Basically, no PLEX doesn't create any value ù it is just an option to call in a 30d game time debt. Once that option is exercised, the PLEX is removed from the economy. Of course it creates value. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! If noone plays, no value enters the game. The avarage 30 days of playing time will generate a quite specific ammount value into the game. I am sure the good econmy dr could tell you the exact number by heart, as that is one of the most important key numbers in eve. Once the plex is exchanged for gametime the value is removed from game, so it's an (albeit delayed) zero sum game.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:07:00 - [93] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual Of course it creates value. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! If noone plays, no value enters the game. That value isn't created by the PLEX, though. Indirectly it is. It very much is! Thats why the econemy wont be hurt any more by PLEX to time conversions than PLEX to AUR conversions. Both are value creating in thier own way. CCP can only get you to buy so many PLEX pr. month to convert to gametime (Including alts etc.. One can only play so many alts.) So they need a way where you can create the value as you would playing an alt, without having to play it, if they are to get you to pay more pr. month. And yes, they want to be able to earn as much as possible from each player. (Notice that. As possible. We are not talking about forcing all to pay more, but enable those willing to pay more to do so. You may call it greed, I call it sense.) "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:08:00 - [94] Edited by: Ri**ulo on 27/06/2011 13:09:18 Originally by: Uuali The more an MT based mechanic is introduced to the game the less CCP actually has to develop anything other than more items. The game will become more about just buying items to get ahead than to enjoy new improved features. This is incorrect and plainly inflammatory. Just look at lotro and you will see development continuing full steam ahead. AUR will possibly change the game for those who play with plex but it is a far stretch to say that it will change for subs players.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:09:00 - [95] Originally by: Ri**ulo I can't see any theories that are more valid than others. All things being equal, the future is uncertain but it doesn't appear to me that AUR could destroy EVE as we know it. it may not destroy eve of course, but it may destroy it for those who cannot pay... many of which are those that helped create the game and the community as it currently is, that would be the real tragedy, the exchange of an amazing dynamic, intelligent and often very humorous playerbase with something else (what else remains to be seen)
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:10:00 - [96] Originally by: Uuali It is more about what people don't want to spend money on than what they have to in order to play the game. MT will increasingly force a must pay system and the player economy (i.e. trading, manufacturing) will become merely fluff with no real significance. And nothing like that is coming to a planet near you. If you want to debate, at least find out what they ARE planning to bring into the game. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:11:00 - [97] Originally by: Ri**ulo Edited by: Ri**ulo on 27/06/2011 13:09:18 Originally by: Uuali The more an MT based mechanic is introduced to the game the less CCP actually has to develop anything other than more items. The game will become more about just buying items to get ahead than to enjoy new improved features. This is incorrect and plainly inflammatory. Just look at lotro and you will see development continuing full steam ahead. AUR will possibly change the game for those who play with plex but it is a far stretch to say that it will change for subs players. really ? just because you can afford $15 a month doesn't mean you can afford $15 + 2 plexes to stay competitive in your pvp adventures
Ridickulo Minmatar Tiger-Shrimp Sons of EvE Alliance	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:12:00 - [98] Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Ri**ulo I can't see any theories that are more valid than others. All things being equal, the future is uncertain but it doesn't appear to me that AUR could destroy EVE as we know it. it may not destroy eve of course, but it may destroy it for those who cannot pay... many of which are those that helped create the game and the community as it currently is, that would be the real tragedy, the exchange of an amazing dynamic, intelligent and often very humorous playerbase with something else (what else remains to be seen) I think you just summed up the whole problem. We needed reassuring from CCP and were largely ignored. From what im seeing, is it too little too late? I hope not.
Tippia Caldari Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:13:00 - [99] Originally by: Qual Indirectly it is. Indirectly isn't directly. It is also not guaranteed. With AUR, it's both direct and guaranteed. So no, the two are not comparable, and no on it's way through the economy, the PLEX does not add value. ùùù ôWe want to try this thing called micro-transactions, but we don't know what it is. Can anyone explainà aw screw it, let's just do it! What could go wrong?ö ù ÇÇP
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:16:00 - [100] Originally by: Ri**ulo Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Ri**ulo I can't see any theories that are more valid than others. All things being equal, the future is uncertain but it doesn't appear to me that AUR could destroy EVE as we know it. it may not destroy eve of course, but it may destroy it for those who cannot pay... many of which are those that helped create the game and the community as it currently is, that would be the real tragedy, the exchange of an amazing dynamic, intelligent and often very humorous playerbase with something else (what else remains to be seen) I think you just summed up the whole problem. We needed reassuring from CCP and were largely ignored. From what im seeing, is it too little too late? I hope not. couldn't agree more mate

Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:18:00 - [101] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual Indirectly it is. Indirectly isn't directly. It is also not guaranteed. With AUR, it's both direct and guaranteed. So no, the two are not comparable, and no on it's way through the economy, the PLEX does not add value. She's right qual... really
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:25:00 - [102] Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual Indirectly it is. Indirectly isn't directly. It is also not guaranteed. With AUR, it's both direct and guaranteed. So no, the two are not comparable, and no on it's way through the economy, the PLEX does not add value. She's right qual... really In micro economics, yes. She is right. But in marco economics she is not. Depends on how you want to look at it. I'll leave it at that. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Zey Nadar Gallente Unknown Soldiers B O R G	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:30:00 - [103] Edited by: Zey Nadar on 27/06/2011 13:33:13 Originally by: Mercurius Steele I'm just curious: Why is it that A is ok with everybody, but B isn't? Nobody said A was ok. Just because CCP chose to battle RMT with plexes of their own, so that people who wanted to pay-to-win wouldnt have to rely on illegal means, doesn't mean pay-to-win is ok in the first place. "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
Toshiroma McDiesel	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:38:00 - [104] Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"?
Mercurius Steele	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:46:00 - [105] Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? The difference is that someone had to give CCP real money for that plex, and it can't afterwards be redeemed for game time. As I've said, I don't think I care, but I understand why some people do. The issue for me is whether or not I care that someone can pay rl money for an advantage. I thought the answer was "yes" until I saw lotro, then I realised that actually I don't mind. If someone could pay rl money for an advantage I couldn't otherwise get, that would be a problem, but since we can buy plex for isk in the hypothetical situation we're considering, that's np for me.
Portmanteau Gallente CTRL-Q	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:50:00 - [106] Edited by: Portmanteau on 27/06/2011 13:52:39 Originally by: Mercurius Steele Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? The difference is that someone had to give CCP real money for that plex, and it can't afterwards be redeemed for game time. As I've said, I don't think I care, but I understand why some people do. The issue for me is whether or not I care that someone can pay rl money for an advantage. I thought the answer was "yes" until I saw lotro, then I realised that actually I don't mind. If someone could pay rl money for an advantage I couldn't otherwise get, that would be a problem, but since we can buy plex for isk in the hypothetical situation we're considering, that's np for me. you are forgetting that a successful NEX shop will remove plex from the game making it increasingly difficult for you to get hold of them with isk and in turn more difficult for you to get that "hypothetical advantage" with isk. EDIT .. to clarify further folks buying shiznit from NEX means less plexes sold for isk = less plex on market folks buying plex from market to burn on AUR for NEX shiznit also means less plex on market
Lexmana	Posted - 2011.06.27 13:51:00 - [107] Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? The main difference is in the logistics. You need to supply standard ammo to get faction ammo and your farmed LP is only available at a limited number of stations. The NeX-shop is always available - no need to establish a supply chain for your operations - i.e. easy mode with AUR.
Slayer Slewy	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:06:00 - [108] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual Of course it creates value. THATS THE WHOLE POINT! If noone plays, no value enters the game. That value isn't created by the PLEX, though. Indirectly it is. It very much is! Thats why the econemy wont be hurt any more by PLEX to time conversions than PLEX to AUR conversions. Both are value creating in thier own way. CCP can only get you to buy so many PLEX pr. month to convert to gametime (Including alts etc.. One can only play so many alts.) So they need a way where you can create the value as you would playing an alt, without having to play it, if they are to get you to pay more pr. month. And yes, they want to be able to earn as much as possible from each player. (Notice that. As possible. We are not talking about forcing all to pay more, but enable those willing to pay more to do so. You may call it greed, I call it sense.) I don't know why you say indirectly. The introduction of PLEX adds an item of value to the economy directly. MT would be doing the same thing. It's a matter of perception, as some have pointed out already. How the market will be affected by it will depend on the items introduced and their values to the players, much like PLEX. There are possibilities that need to be worried, but MT items won't inherently break the economy, no more than PLEX can.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:08:00 - [109] Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? Consider the number of "jobs" in producing each of the items in the two situations player 1 mines minerals player 2 researches T1 ammo BPO and either sells original or creates copies player 3 manufactures T1 ammo player 4 missions, converts LP into faction ammo and in the other case Player 1 buys plex, and converts AUR into faction ammo Which is better for the economy?
Slayer Slewy	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:12:00 - [110] Originally by: Siiee Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? Consider the number of "jobs" in producing each of the items in the two situations player 1 mines minerals player 2 researches T1 ammo BPO and either sells original or creates copies player 3 manufactures T1 ammo player 4 missions, converts LP into faction ammo and in the other case Player 1 buys plex, and converts AUR into faction ammo Which is better for the economy? Player 1 buys a PLEX, selling it for 400m ISK on the market. Player 2 buys some "golden ammo" and sells them on the market for 400m ISK. Which is better for the economy?

northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Terran United Federation	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:17:00 - [111] Originally by: Jaigar Edited by: Jaigar on 27/06/2011 11:27:53 Originally by: Maleficius Trucido Edited by: Maleficius Trucido on 27/06/2011 11:07:13 because it stays in the game. With faction ammo, its made by players who either bought materials from miners or mined themselves. They got the ability to mine by flying big giant mining ships which were earned by grinding and getting skills. they obtained the blueprints from money they earned missioning or some other means. With buying items that come from some magic game store, it takes all that away. this will completly destroy the economy. Instead of people mining or missioning or building ships to obtain isk to buy ships from other people or whatever, you just poof... buy an item with real life money. Mineral price will plumet, components will plument, everything plumets, because there is no more demand for those items. Wrong. Faction ammo is made by NPCs by exchanging LP,isk and t1 ammo for faction ammo. The volume of faction ammo produced has a neglible impact on the minerals market. Wrong! Fraction ammo is made my player who get the BPC from LP. Which in turn Player who do mission and save up for Fraction ammo. Their for Player buy the BPC with LP and Makes them and sells them on Market Or uses them for them self. Their for Player driven as they buy the LP and do missions.. Not NPC Thanks have a nice day ------------------------------------
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:19:00 - [112] Originally by: Slayer Slewy Player 1 buys a PLEX, selling it for 400m ISK on the market. Player 2 buys some "golden ammo" and sells them on the market for 400m ISK. Which is better for the economy? Selling purchased ammo on the market puts a miner, researcher, manufacturer, mission runner, and possibly multiple traders and haulers "out of business" Selling a purchased PLEX on the market puts..... no one?
Savage Angel Gallente Gambler's Inc.	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:22:00 - [113] Didn't CCP say they were waiting on items until they could make it an item exchange plus Aurum to buy stuff? You want a pretty ship? You trade in the same ship plus Aurum and get the paint job. You want slightly better ammo? You trade in a like quantity of the closest ammo to it plus Aurum and get a stack of upgraded stuff. The economy still hums along. The items you have to trade in may actually sell more for a while as people buy them from players to get the shinier stuff. Done the way they have stated, it sounds like it will have minimal impact on the economy. However, there is still the problem of competitive advantage if said stuff gives you one. Maybe the ammo will just have a spectacular visual? Would be nice.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:26:00 - [114] Originally by: Siiee Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel Question about "Golden Ammo" What is the difference from me farming LP to buy faction ammo (puffed into game by CCP)(i've never bought it from players, that cost too much isk) And farming ISK to buy Plex to buy "Golden Ammo"? Consider the number of "jobs" in producing each of the items in the two situations player 1 mines minerals player 2 researches T1 ammo BPO and either sells original or creates copies player 3 manufactures T1 ammo player 4 missions, converts LP into faction ammo and in the other case Player 1 buys plex, and converts AUR into faction ammo Which is better for the economy? Your other case is wrong: player 1 mines minerals player 2 researches T1 ammo BPO and either sells original or creates copies player 3 manufactures T1 ammo player 4 Buys PLEX, converts to AUR, pays T1 ammo and AUR to get faction ammo Fixed! So back to the question: Which is better for teh economy? "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Slayer Slewy	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:26:00 - [115] Originally by: Siiee Originally by: Slayer Slewy Player 1 buys a PLEX, selling it for 400m ISK on the market. Player 2 buys some "golden ammo" and sells them on the market for 400m ISK. Which is better for the economy? Selling purchased ammo on the market puts a miner, researcher, manufacturer, mission runner, and possibly multiple traders and haulers "out of business" Selling a purchased PLEX on the market puts..... no one? So, according to your definition, PLEX breaks economy. Why are people only concerned with MT and not PLEX then?
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:34:00 - [116] Yes that's a good point, I had forgotten about that. If the NeX store is structured like the LP store then it is neutral to the economy. The inflation of power is still a major issue tho, since there are no checks and balances to purchases in NeX.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:37:00 - [117] So, according to your definition, PLEX breaks economy. Why are people only concerned with MT and not PLEX then? I don't know where you get that, PLEX is entirely neutral to the economy, as it does not replace any existing in-game processes. But with trade in value in the NeX then MTs don't either. So from a purely game economy standpoint then they are equal and I was wrong.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:44:00 - [118] Originally by: Siiee Yes that's a good point, I had forgotten about that. If the NeX store is structured like the LP store then it is neutral to the economy. The inflation of power is still a major issue tho, since there are no checks and balances to purchases in NeX. Its not exactly neutral. Case one also sinks some ISK in the process, which is allways good. But overall I think the differences are not big enough to topple the economic balance as the doomsays want you to belive. I think that CCP might just have miscalculated how much more they will make doing this. Current PLEX trade allready works towards maxing thier potential earnings pr. player. I am not sure that vanity or convinience items will sell that much more for them, than would they have, had they just added them to the normal economy. I mean, If people are ready to pay 3+ plex for a Monacle, whouldn't they also happily pay 1.2B+ ISK for the same item. In both cases I as a end user end up paying CCP the same ammount of RL cash to get it, if I choose the Pay2Win (Wrong, more like Pay4Convinience, or Pay4Con, Just coined a new term there... ) option. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:46:00 - [119] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Portmanteau Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Qual Indirectly it is. Indirectly isn't directly. It is also not guaranteed. With AUR, it's both direct and guaranteed. So no, the two are not comparable, and no on it's way through the economy, the PLEX does not add value. She's right qual... really In micro economics, yes. She is right. But in marco economics she is not. Depends on how you want to look at it. I'll leave it at that. No she's still right at the Macro level, In fact she's only talking about the macro-level. Now you might argue that at the micro level plex does create some value by enabling players who otherwise wouldn't be able to participate in the economic engine of ship destruction are now able to at a different level but it still doesn't fundamentally change how the economy works. Let me guess you're one of those fresh water Chicago school types who believes in that trickle down voodoo economic nonsense?
Slayer Slewy	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:47:00 - [120] Originally by: Siiee So, according to your definition, PLEX breaks economy. Why are people only concerned with MT and not PLEX then? I don't know where you get that, PLEX is entirely neutral to the economy, as it does not replace any existing in-game processes. But with trade in value in the NeX then MTs don't either. So from a purely game economy standpoint then they are equal and I was wrong. PLEX is not neutral to the economy. It does not affect the manufacturing sector of the economy, but it does affect the overall economy. People have argued about all this over and over way back, I don't know why people are now popping up to do the same again on something that is entirely the same thing.

Toshiroma McDiesel	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:55:00 - [121] Edited by: Toshiroma McDiesel on 27/06/2011 14:56:01 Originally by: northwesten Originally by: Jaigar Edited by: Jaigar on 27/06/2011 11:27:53 Originally by: Maleficius Trucido Edited by: Maleficius Trucido on 27/06/2011 11:07:13 Wrong! Fraction ammo is made my player who get the BPC from LP. Which in turn Player who do mission and save up for Fraction ammo. Their for Player buy the BPC with LP and Makes them and sells them on Market Or uses them for them self. Their for Player driven as they buy the LP and do missions.. Not NPC Thanks have a nice day That would be Wrong in my case. I use faction ammo, bought with LP (you can buy the ammo straight up, no need for BPC) & the trade in ammo is always loot off missions as well (I've yet to have to actually buy normal ammo, it drops like mad on missions). So again, what is the difference? The NPC mobs aren't buying ammo off the player market, it's poofed into the game as well.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 14:58:00 - [122] Originally by: Skex Relbore Let me guess you're one of those fresh water Chicago school types who believes in that trickle down voodoo economic nonsense? No I am just a bloke who needed to go to Wikipedia to confirm I wasn't missusing the concept to much. Macro economics is based on large scale and avarages, and on average each single PLEX WILL be converted to Playtime which WILL create value. On micro level anything can happen to prevent the PLEX to create value or make it create huge ammounts af value so nothing can be predicted. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:00:00 - [123] Its not exactly neutral. Case one also sinks some ISK in the process, which is allways good. But overall I think the differences are not big enough to topple the economic balance as the doomsays want you to belive. I think that CCP might just have miscalculated how much more they will make doing this. Current PLEX trade allready works towards maxing thier potential earnings pr. player. I am not sure that vanity or convinience items will sell that much more for them, than would they have, had they just added them to the normal economy. I mean, If people are ready to pay 3+ plex for a Monacle, whouldn't they also happily pay 1.2B+ ISK for the same item. In both cases I as a end user end up paying CCP the same ammount of RL cash to get it, if I choose the Pay2Win (Wrong, more like Pay4Convinience, or Pay4Con, Just coined a new term there... ) option. I'm sure they look at the growing number of PLEX sitting on the market and see that there are more people looking to buy isk than there are looking to trade isk for gametime. Over time this would continue to bring the price of PLEX down until people slow down in purchasing them for real money. That's the self balancing effect of them that is so great, and it worked for a while but now they've decided that they'd rather keep flushing the PLEX thru the system as fast as it can so they removed the balancing factors and just put a direct drain on the supply with the NeX. There isn't any way you could really have pay4Convenience without ruining the market tho. If you pay for faction items you're cutting in on the LP or complex runners trade, and you can't sell T1 items because in order to remain neutral to the economy you'd need to supply the T1 version in the first place. The only way a MT item store would work is if it were something new and different than any other current item, and that leaves you with stuff that looks different (vanity) or has different attributes. If the items for sale are not as powerful as items in game then no one would buy them, and when items are more powerful than other items in game, well that is P2W.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:05:00 - [124] Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel The NPC mobs aren't buying ammo off the player market, it's poofed into the game as well. That was actually a point of contention a while ago, because the drops from rats /was/ significantly effecting the economy, and the drop rates were changed in an attempt to curb that. But even then, you only get the rat drops if you loot your mission, that's work and effort that you've put into it. Salvaging is a mini profession afterall. There just happen to be two ways to get T1 ammo, manufacture and salvaging, and you're doing the second. But now what about if you decided that you need to purchase 10M rounds of whatever navy ammo you're using? The amount of ammo that you get from loot drops is limited, so you still rely on manufacturers to make up the bulk of the market volume.
Slayer Slewy	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:11:00 - [125] Originally by: Siiee and when items are more powerful than other items in game, well that is P2W. If you must define it that way. However, if a MT item offers a lot of value to a player, and since MT items will be tradable, then its market price will reflect that value. Such an item would then raise the value and price of PLEX, which is used to "produce" it. It will mean that your real life currency will gain purchasing power in the overall economy. This is no more "P2W" than PLEX in theory, because it works the same way in the economy.
Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:13:00 - [126] Edited by: Qual on 27/06/2011 15:13:29 Originally by: Siiee There isn't any way you could really have pay4Convenience without ruining the market tho. If you pay for faction items you're cutting in on the LP or complex runners trade, and you can't sell T1 items because in order to remain neutral to the economy you'd need to supply the T1 version in the first place. The only way a MT item store would work is if it were something new and different than any other current item, and that leaves you with stuff that looks different (vanity) or has different attributes. If the items for sale are not as powerful as items in game then no one would buy them, and when items are more powerful than other items in game, well that is P2W. Well, if the Pay4Con is more expensive then it should not hurt to market too much. And it seems it will be. Monocles anyone? That said it seems to me they will only sell unique items in the shop. I did not say vanity on pupose, as they might sell special ships and the like, but not ships that are allready available form other sources. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
northwesten Amarr Trinity Corporate Services Terran United Federation	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:16:00 - [127] Originally by: Toshiroma McDiesel The NPC mobs aren't buying ammo off the player market, it's poofed into the game as well. Not really poofed into the game you have earned the LP right? like isk? Credit Card you buy and you have it with no effort other having a RL job. Their is a difference and still player driven. To get Fraction ammo you need to grind some missions and crap to get it. ------------------------------------
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation RvB - RED Federation	Posted - 2011.06.27 15:49:00 - [128] Originally by: Qual Originally by: Skex Relbore Let me guess you're one of those fresh water Chicago school types who believes in that trickle down voodoo economic nonsense? No I am just a bloke who needed to go to Wikipedia to confirm I wasn't missusing the concept to much. Macro economics is based on large scale and avarages, and on average each single PLEX WILL be converted to Playtime which WILL create value. On micro level anything can happen to prevent the PLEX to create value or make it create huge ammounts af value so nothing can be predicted. Macro-economics looks at the entirety of an economy and how various policies and practices affect said economy. Not simply large scales and averages (though they do play a part in said analysis) as opposed to micro which tends to deal with the nuts and bolts of how said economy operates things like supply and demand curves, operating and labor costs etc and so forth. Plex in their current state have little effect when it comes to creating value in the EVE economy the ships still have to be built the isk to buy them still have to be earned and accounts still have to be paid for. All the plex does is let one player pay the subscription cost of another player. All the value created in the EVE economy is still created via player actions using the mechanics of the game. A plex is simply an instrument for shifting resources around. Hell they don't even add value to the company at a macro level since every subscription has to be paid. Now at the micro-level they do have some affect in that they enable a player who may not have the time or in game knowledge/resources to generate the isk to engage in other activities to participate at a level beyond what they otherwise would but that still doesn't result in the direct creation of value. Think about this when you get right down to it what is money? Money is a representation of time, when you pay someone money for something you are compensating them for the time it took them to generate the product or service you are purchasing. You used your time to earn that cash then you trade that cash for someone else's time. The same thing goes for a plex it's a Game TIME card after all(well technically half of one). So it's simply a medium of exchange. It is value neutral. MT breaks that model by bypassing the entire player driven economy and creating value out of thin air in exchange for real life cash rather than through game mechanics all the of which require some level of time investment by a actual player of the game.
Siiee Recycled Heroes	Posted - 2011.06.28 00:27:00 - [129] Originally by: Qual Well, if the Pay4Con is more expensive then it should not hurt to market too much. And it seems it will be. Monocles anyone? Two reasons, balancing things by price has never worked in the history of EVE, remember Titans were made expensive and the intent was for there to be no more than 2 or 3 in game at any one time, now we have nearly 400 of the things and growing every day. The second thing that's even worse is that with power MTs that they have no motivation to balance it in terms of game balance, but every motivation to balance it in terms of income. A powerful MT item has to be powerful enough to justify paying real money for it for enough people, so you're not going to see +1 implants and 1% boosters. Monocles are vanity items, and we can tell that they just got their pricing by throwing crap against the wall and looking to see if it's sticking. They just happened to be blind, feeble, and with parkinsons, and what they threw landed on the ceiling. They didn't put in NeX to not make money, and you can expect prices and items to move to cater to a point where they can make as much as they can (as any reasonable person would expect a reasonable corporation to do). They got lucky with the monocle because there is such great troll value in them now, so they managed to make a few tens of thousands of dollars off the current outrage, but I'm sure that they'll realize that those sales figures are a massive unsustainable anomaly when compared to all of the rest of the items in the NeX. p2w or p4con or whatever will destroy the balance of power in the game. It creates an entire 2nd competitive tier that can only be bought into, and can only be won by outbuying your opponents. The rest of the playerbase just gets to be cannon fodder for the MT players amusement without any of the compensations that the PLEX system has. If they only sell unique items that are perfectly balanced against the entire rest of the regular eve item collection, then effectively what they are doing is increasing the subscription price for everyone across the board by taking portions of the game and putting them behind a 2nd pay gate. I would rather pay for expansions than MT all the new content.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one 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.