EVE Search - [Please Read] It was NEVER about G.O.L.D. A.M.M.O.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

[Please Read] It was NEVER about G.O.L.D. A.M.M.O.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Valor D'eglise Gallente Red Cross Of Gallente Federation	Posted - 2011.06.28 01:44:00 - [31] I take several things from this video. First: regular forum posters are spineless creatures which are so engaged to the game (up to the level of addiction, maybe), that they won't quit the game even if they say so. Second: because they are not going to leave and have such a strong connection to the game, they will not tolerate others having an advantage over them. So they start paying in order to stay "on top". Third: only a very, very tiny percentage of players post on the forums. Now this is nothing unexpected for me since I have my account since 2009 and never posted before Incarna. I read in the forums from time to time, but even this still means I am a member of a minority. Now from my point of view this cannot exactly be translated to EVE. First: EVE is not a shooter. EVE is not popular with the average gamer and especially not with the "casual gamer" group. EVE is an "intelligent game", and EVE is slow and challenging I have faith that the userbase attracted is more "grown up/mature" (in lack of a better word) than the userbase of other games. From my experience this is true, although there are negative examples - of course. And second: EVE is not free to play to begin with. The example in the video was free to play from the beginning. Selling in-game advantages in EVE would be a rip off because we already pay to play, whereas investing 10Ç/$ per month in a free to play game in order to be able to keep up with the competitive level seems reasonable. Now what I don't like about free to play games is indeed the "pay2win" factor. I was quite interested in "world of tanks" and would have been totally fine by paying a fee to get more experience/gold (because let's face it, you simply have to if you want to enjoy the game). But after reading in their Wiki I realized they are selling special tanks and amo, crew training and in-game money, too. So you probably wouldn't end up with just 10Ç/month if you were serious about the game. This seems to be the case with all (new) "F2P" games. But then again maybe I am just in a minority that is scared away from this concept. Especially since you never know if prices will change or if other options are brought up that you would have to buy, making it even more expensive. Unreasonable fear? Maybe. But then again, we are having the "promise, there will never be MT in EVE" MTs in EVE now. In EVE especially there is another aspect: EVE has a player driven economy. Everything that is bought from the NeX-store is messing with the economy. Every Plex bought from the market for Aurum is one less Plex that CCP has to grant free gametime for and is one month less of game time for some poor dude who need's it. (Plex prices have already increased). Every item from the NeX store is not player-created. These things also do not go away under normal conditions, even clothes we're already having now. So every item adds value to the market, devaluating everything else and just F-ing over traders, inventors, manufacturers, miners and grinders little by little through lower prices on the market. Every ISK spend on clothes is ISK not spend on something that another player deserves money for. This is part of why I refuse the idea of MT in EVE completely, although I was like "whatever" at first. Just my 2 cents.
Erien Rand	Posted - 2011.06.28 02:20:00 - [32] The reason I believe the model that the creators of BFH used wont work in Eve is that Eve is work. I don't think that you will see a massive influx of casual gamers to Eve. Some would call hi-sec mission runners or miners "casual" (I wouldn't) but even those professions take a good deal of patience and discipline. The average 12 yr old with mommy's credit card would give up in frustration when he/she couldn't just jump out from behind a corner and pop something with a gold rifle with gold ammo. Let me say again, Eve is Work(tm), when I need a break from it I go to a game like World of Tanks, I load the game up and jump in a tank. It is instant adrenaline pumping pvp. It is not work. However, it is not Eve. I always seem to come to Eve to "get the job done". I hope CCP understands the difference between a casual F2P/P2W game and Eve. I hope thet don't try to make Eve into a BFH. We are here for the work and if it gets so easy that a credit card swipe wins the game I think many would leave.
Evander Armistice	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:15:00 - [33] Originally by: Erien Rand The reason I believe the model that the creators of BFH used wont work in Eve is that Eve is work. I don't think that you will see a massive influx of casual gamers to Eve. Some would call hi-sec mission runners or miners "casual" (I wouldn't) but even those professions take a good deal of patience and discipline. The average 12 yr old with mommy's credit card would give up in frustration when he/she couldn't just jump out from behind a corner and pop something with a gold rifle with gold ammo. Let me say again, Eve is Work(tm), when I need a break from it I go to a game like World of Tanks, I load the game up and jump in a tank. It is instant adrenaline pumping pvp. It is not work. However, it is not Eve. I always seem to come to Eve to "get the job done". I hope CCP understands the difference between a casual F2P/P2W game and Eve. I hope thet don't try to make Eve into a BFH. We are here for the work and if it gets so easy that a credit card swipe wins the game I think many would leave. Nailed it!
Harcosi	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:21:00 - [34] Edited by: Harcosi on 28/06/2011 03:21:31 Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's ****ed up. No. An example of this is Morphine in Fallout 3. It was banned until it was renamed (Not sure on this one) Med-X. Which it should have been in the first place, as it was Med-X in the first 2 games (Not sure about Brotherhood or Tactics).
Panda Name Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:22:00 - [35] Edited by: Panda Name on 28/06/2011 03:25:09 your post is interesting, and i hope this doesn't happen. whenever i try to introduce the game to new players, one of the first things they ask me about regards whether or not they can create and smuggle drugs. i must keep bad company, but if the items are reduced to aurum, that allure would diminish greatly. edit: also, while that pay2win presentation was interesting, i don't think the data can apply to eve. i believe that eve is comprised of that discussed 2% of literally insane people who have the potential to rage on the forums. that's why our subscription base will never be like world of warcraft, and is why we win the moral victory.
General Xenophon	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:24:00 - [36] Originally by: Xinxua Pay to win is an EA concept. Why is this being referenced to all companies following this model seems hilarious. It's also an aptly put phrase that sums up what it is when you pay for things which give you a leg up on other players so... yea that's why people reference it.
52 MonocIes 52 Monocles	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:26:00 - [37] Originally by: Starfall Achura Here is why: It was never about ôgold ammo or gunsö it has always been about boosters. Very consistent reasoning. Makes perfect sense. I believe you may be right. Quote: p.s. The forums will not allow me to put the term "gold ammo" in my title Welcome to the real world. If you can't suppress an opinion, suppress the ways to express it. -- I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Threadnaughts on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
Kno Bodeesbitch	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:26:00 - [38] Originally by: Harcosi Edited by: Harcosi on 28/06/2011 03:21:31 Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's ****ed up. No. An example of this is Morphine in Fallout 3. It was banned until it was renamed (Not sure on this one) Med-X. Which it should have been in the first place, as it was Med-X in the first 2 games (Not sure about Brotherhood or Tactics). I think that would make it a "yes"..if they had to change the name of an ingame item because it was a drug then the same would apply to Eve. That as I remember was the concern the player had at fanfest...
Patient 2428190 DEGRREE'Fo'FREE Internet Business School	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:33:00 - [39] If its powerful, it sure as hell won't be cheap (see price differences between 3% and 6% hardwirings) Something that costs in the realm of 20,000 Aurum for a small ingame advantage is not really all that different than "solo" players tooling around with T3 ganglink alts and pirate implants. In that video, that would be described as investing a huge amount of money into light-weight wheels for your bicycle in racing. You just learn to accept that, and in fact a lot of people respect the "solo" pvp movie makers for putting huge assets on the line. They paid a steep ISK for performance like that. While its absolutely shameful that it is NPC spawned in this "market simulator" of a game, its not the end of the world ...Then when you stopped to think about it. All you really said was Lalala.
Starfall Achura	Posted - 2011.06.28 03:44:00 - [40] Originally by: Patient 2428190 If its powerful, it sure as hell won't be cheap (see price differences between 3% and 6% hardwirings) Something that costs in the realm of 20,000 Aurum for a small ingame advantage is not really all that different than "solo" players tooling around with T3 ganglink alts and pirate implants. In that video, that would be described as investing a huge amount of money into light-weight wheels for your bicycle in racing. You just learn to accept that, and in fact a lot of people respect the "solo" pvp movie makers for putting huge assets on the line. They paid a steep ISK for performance like that. While its absolutely shameful that it is NPC spawned in this "market simulator" of a game, its not the end of the world I don't recall saying "lalala"..I also don't recall saying it was the end of the world. I seem to remember writing about what I thought would come next. This is not a rage post. Most people who have posted here have been rather tame imo..thanks for stopping by.

Nishachara Special Operations Corp Mortal Destruction	Posted - 2011.06.28 04:28:00 - [41] First of all i am strongly against pay to win. About boosters... I use synths...it always adds to cost of my pvp fit along with faction ammo... I never used more serious boosters (coz of the side effects, i dont believe that its worth a risk if you are flying a bc or something like that ). So...if they add boosters for aurum/isk without side effects... First thought is that they would be expensive...so if one booster costs 50M ISK or 500 AUR ...and it gives you (lets exaggarate) 25% more dps/tank...whatever... And you are flying a battlecruiser...is it worthwile for you to pay for one single booster the price of your whole ship with fitting ? If you get overnumbered and die anyway you lost 2x bc-s not one... And if that boosters come cheaper (lets say 10M)...everybody will use them so its not such a big deal... As i said i am strongly against pay to win, but in this case i am not sure is this pay to win or more of either equivalent of "faction module" (which is expensive but gives you an edge) or "faction ammo" (everyone uses faction ammo in pvp so it does not set you apart more from the next guy, its the norm)
Freya Kesanlaulu Minmatar Arthashastra	Posted - 2011.06.28 04:48:00 - [42] Originally by: Nishachara First of all i am strongly against pay to win. About boosters... I use synths...it always adds to cost of my pvp fit along with faction ammo... I never used more serious boosters (coz of the side effects, i dont believe that its worth a risk if you are flying a bc or something like that ). So...if they add boosters for aurum/isk without side effects... First thought is that they would be expensive...so if one booster costs 50M ISK or 500 AUR ...and it gives you (lets exaggarate) 25% more dps/tank...whatever... And you are flying a battlecruiser...is it worthwile for you to pay for one single booster the price of your whole ship with fitting ? If you get overnumbered and die anyway you lost 2x bc-s not one... And if that boosters come cheaper (lets say 10M)...everybody will use them so its not such a big deal... As i said i am strongly against pay to win, but in this case i am not sure is this pay to win or more of either equivalent of "faction module" (which is expensive but gives you an edge) or "faction ammo" (everyone uses faction ammo in pvp so it does not set you apart more from the next guy, its the norm) Agree. Anyway, we'll be able to buy all that items with isk. So there will be no difference between that kind of modules (boosters), and faction modules for your ship - in a way faction modules are also "pay to win", if you have isk to buy them, you're better. The same will be with boosters. _______________________________
52 MonocIes 52 Monocles	Posted - 2011.06.28 05:00:00 - [43] bump for truth. -- I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Threadnaughts on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
Greup	Posted - 2011.06.28 08:17:00 - [44] AS long as everything is made inside the universe and the player economy- fine. But if they are made out of thin air and can be bought only by RL cash- not ok.
Sylthi Minmatar Coreward Pan-Galactic Holy Empire of The Unshaven	Posted - 2011.06.28 10:12:00 - [45] Well thought out and excellent reasoning. I, for one, agree with your OP. I took the liberty of makeing my own thread with a link to the video to raise awareness. I gave you full credit, ofc. Hope you don't mind. Cheers for the thread. I really hope it opens some eyes. o7 * *
Misanth RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE	Posted - 2011.06.28 10:15:00 - [46] This. -
Marchocias	Posted - 2011.06.28 10:18:00 - [47] Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's ****ed up. Yeah... what about all the health packs? ---- Will 2011-06-24 go down as the day CCP stood still, or the day the dream died?
Katra Novac	Posted - 2011.06.28 10:20:00 - [48] OP, the question about non-vanity items could and should have been answered in plain English from the start of this mess. Which, would leave no room for doubt. As it is they just keep dodging the issue and delaying any meaningful answer. You can theorize all you want, but you're wasting your time.
Harcosi	Posted - 2011.06.28 14:33:00 - [49] Originally by: Kno Bodees*** Originally by:** Harcosi Edited by: Harcosi on 28/06/2011 03:21:31 Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's **ed up. No. An example of this is Morphine in Fallout 3. It was banned until it was renamed (Not sure on this one) Med-X. Which it should have been in the first place, as it was Med-X in the first 2 games (Not sure about Brotherhood or Tactics). I think that would make it a "yes"..if they had to change the name of an ingame item because it was a drug then the same would apply to Eve. That as I remember was the concern the player had at fanfest... It's not the item, it's the name. Booster wouldn't be a problem, because it's not a real world drug name. I can understand the reasoning. 8 year old kid plays game, injects **** to buff character....
Starfall Achura	Posted - 2011.06.28 14:44:00 - [50] Originally by: Sylthi Well thought out and excellent reasoning. I, for one, agree with your OP. I took the liberty of makeing my own thread with a link to the video to raise awareness. I gave you full credit, ofc. Hope you don't mind. Cheers for the thread. I really hope it opens some eyes. o7 Thanks Sylthi o7

Starfall Achura	Posted - 2011.06.28 14:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Katra Novac OP, the question about non-vanity items could and should have been answered in plain English from the start of this mess. Which, would leave no room for doubt. As it is they just keep dodging the issue and delaying any meaningful answer. You can theorize all you want, but you're wasting your time. Katra I disagree with you. The purpose of my post was to raise awareness. The reason for it is that is I believe that by focusing on the term "gold ammo" the Eve community is setting itself up for a potential fall. We know what WE mean by gold ammo (everything that is p2w) but as we have seen in the recent past words matter and gold ammo may not mean the same thing to CCP (could mean quite literally p2w ammo). A situation may occur at th CSM meeting in Iceland where CCP "gives ground" by saying to the CSM "Ok, we hear you loud and clear, no p2w ships, guns or ammo" but "we need to make money somehow so lets meet in th middle and try boosters and implants". That would not be a compromise at all in my opinion. My contention is that boosters and implants have been the plan all along. By the same token CCP may simply be forthright and tell us they NEED to sell us these items to save their company. If so, while I think they will lose a portion of the player base (never good considering that some of them may be our best), some compromise could be made that would at least preserve the intergrity of our game. They may also prove me wrong and say "no non-vanity items ever". I posted this originally to get us all on what I felt was the same page. My ultimate aim is to keep our game as close to its origianal incarnation as possible in this evolving new world.
Savage Angel Gallente Gambler's Inc.	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:13:00 - [52] If the items bought in such a way can be sold on the open ISK market, it does a lot to make it palatable. In most games, you pay for the advantage and only you can use it. If Eve introduced booster drugs, you could buy them with your wallet, or with your ISK. And it is already a fact that the alliance with deeper pockets has an advantage in warfare (not an "I win" button, but an advantage). Depending on pricing, the booster drugs bought would slowly build up in the economy, as some MT players buy them and sell for ISK. The players that buy them for ISK will save them for when they are needed, or do the normal market PvP that is Eve, with the drugs as another commodity. It could add to the gameplay to have real smuggling, seedy bars with black market transactions, and side-effects to using the drugs too much. CCP would profit from the sale, and the players could profit from extra content.
Urziel99	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:24:00 - [53] Originally by: Harcosi Originally by: Kno Bodees*** Originally by:** Harcosi Edited by: Harcosi on 28/06/2011 03:21:31 Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's **ed up. No. An example of this is Morphine in Fallout 3. It was banned until it was renamed (Not sure on this one) Med-X. Which it should have been in the first place, as it was Med-X in the first 2 games (Not sure about Brotherhood or Tactics). I think that would make it a "yes"..if they had to change the name of an ingame item because it was a drug then the same would apply to Eve. That as I remember was the concern the player had at fanfest... It's not the item, it's the name. Booster wouldn't be a problem, because it's not a real world drug name. I can understand the reasoning. 8 year old kid plays game, injects **** to buff character.... ^ This. As long as they don't use real world drug names for the boosters no problem. PS. There was no Med-X in FO1 or 2. Psycho had the both the +dam (which that chem kept in FO3 and FONV) and +DT effects (which were given to Med-X in later titles). Yes, I'm a fallout nerd. And yes I'll go back to it if CCP screws this PtW BS up.
Khamelean	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:27:00 - [54] Originally by: AkJon Ferguson Is that true about Australia making it illegal to play a game in which your character uses drugs? That's ****ed up. Only if it actively glorifies and encourages drug use.
dibblebill Danneskjold Heavy Industries	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:31:00 - [55] I am still protesting, as this wasn't the primary focus of my protest. It was the dishonesty and disrespect shown to us the last two weeks. ESPECIALLY the latter. -------SIGNATURE------- I fly a Rook, Falcon, Blackbird and Widow. U MAD?
Sheila Sarani	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:45:00 - [56] Originally by: Vincent Athena What if they did it this way: Boosters come from NPC's and are bought for ISK alone. (Or booster ingredients, or...) Sales only take place at shady establishments owned by players. In order to keep transactions off the record, the establishment owner has to pay bribes in Aurum. The owner gets kickbacks from every transaction, paid in ISK. An owner sets the kickback percentage, and that effects the booster price at his establishment. Owners thus compete with each other. This way the buyers and users of boosters never touch Aurum. With this system, is it still pay to win? Ummm emmm... you know what? this is indirect enough that this would be almost no issue imho... Oh and you can contact [email protected] I think it`s only compromise that can be achieved without "forum mayhem 2.0"
Harcosi	Posted - 2011.06.28 15:52:00 - [57] Originally by: Urziel99 ^ This. As long as they don't use real world drug names for the boosters no problem. PS. There was no Med-X in FO1 or 2. Psycho had the both the +dam (which that chem kept in FO3 and FONV) and +DT effects (which were given to Med-X in later titles). Yes, I'm a fallout nerd. And yes I'll go back to it if CCP screws this PtW BS up. Really? Wow, It's been way too long since I played the real Fallouts then.
Starfall Achura	Posted - 2011.06.28 16:57:00 - [58] Originally by: Sheila Sarani Originally by: Vincent Athena What if they did it this way: Boosters come from NPC's and are bought for ISK alone. (Or booster ingredients, or...) Sales only take place at shady establishments owned by players. In order to keep transactions off the record, the establishment owner has to pay bribes in Aurum. The owner gets kickbacks from every transaction, paid in ISK. An owner sets the kickback percentage, and that effects the booster price at his establishment. Owners thus compete with each other. This way the buyers and users of boosters never touch Aurum. With this system, is it still pay to win? Ummm emmm... you know what? this is indirect enough that this would be almost no issue imho... Oh and you can contact [email protected] I think it`s only compromise that can be achieved without "forum mayhem 2.0" I sent it in to Trebor giving Vincent full credit for the idea. Thanks for the e-mail address
Rilcas Semah Seventh Exploration and Engagement Command Gryphon League	Posted - 2011.06.28 17:00:00 - [59] Originally by: Starfall Achura 3-http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win After reading/listening to this link, the take away from the narrator is that ôpay to winö only works if the ôloserö doesnÆt know he lost due to the winner paying for an extra advantage. We have Killboards that would show if ôgold ammoö or ôgold weaponsö had been usedàCCP cannot introduce these items without violating the cardinal rule of Pay to Winàsee above. If you watched the whole video you'd know that one of the "morals" of the story is that people don't mind knowing that the other player had an advantage and even goes on to site comparisons to real life sports where such inequalities are a norm. Just pointing that out.
Starfall Achura	Posted - 2011.06.28 17:00:00 - [60] Originally by: dibblebill I am still protesting, as this wasn't the primary focus of my protest. It was the dishonesty and disrespect shown to us the last two weeks. ESPECIALLY the latter. I have to agree with you there. As I said in the opening of this post, I found both Zulu and Hilmar's conduct to be unacceptable. That being said, I am trying to find ways to preserve the game I love in the form in which I love it. My day to day is not influenced by Zulu unless he changes my game to the point where it is unplayable to me.



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

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