| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Simetraz
   |
Posted - 2011.06.30 14:48:00 -
[91]
Without reading you book your thread title speaks the truth.
Pay to win was always in game even before plexes.
The ground work started with the first BOTTER and ISK seller.
It truly got off the ground when the first player bought ISK off of them.
CCP just responded to player demand and wisely decided it was better for players to pay CCP instead of some third company that was leaching off of CCP's work.
End of story really. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
|
Posted - 2011.06.30 14:53:00 -
[92]
 Originally by: Simetraz
Without reading you book your thread title speaks the truth.
Pay to win was always in game even before plexes.
The ground work started with the first BOTTER and ISK seller.
It truly got off the ground when the first player bought ISK off of them.
CCP just responded to player demand and wisely decided it was better for players to pay CCP instead of some third company that was leaching off of CCP's work.
End of story really.
He's actually NOT saying that.
Quote:
Lots of people are still unironically asking this question. "Why the hate for power MTs when PLEX are already power MTs?"
Think about what happens with the PLEX transaction. The originating player buys a GTC from CCP or some other retailer and redeems it into 2 PLEX. At this point CCP count their product obligation as fulfilled; the player has receive what he has paid for, regardless of what happens to it in the future. So far, this is pretty much identical to any other MT: give publisher monies = can haz in-game itemz. But what can you actually do with your PLEX?
|
Khamelean
|
Posted - 2011.06.30 15:01:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Khamelean on 30/06/2011 15:02:38
The main concern seems to be the destabilisation of the market, the moment something iss added to the store that takes away from other payers experience, you have a problem.
For MT to be successful in eve item must meet 2 requirements.
1. Everything in the game that can be bought through MT must also be purchasable with ISK. There must be no obligation for players who pay a subscription fee to pay any extra on top of that.
2. Items in the nex store must not compete in any way with items on the eve market. As long as the items sold in the store are separate from the general market the fact that they appear out of thin air doesn't matter. At worst it simple doesn't ADD any more depth to the game. Nothing is taken away though.
If you can think of items that fit these requirements and you still have a problem with them, then i would suggest it's the items themselves as gameplay concepts you have problems with and has nothing to do with micro-transactions.
|
Vaya DeLopasz
|
Posted - 2011.06.30 15:26:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Vaya DeLopasz on 30/06/2011 15:26:47
mechanics->dynamics->aesthetics.
- the game mechanic in eve enables you to fly a ship and kill stuff.
- a new mechanic allows you to be a gorgeous sexy or a mean pirate in a room.
- starsystems offer players space. they also allow decentralization on server side.
- npcs are generated for so called missions (quests)
- resources are generated for so called mining
dynamics.
- moving in the game costs time.
- for killing npcs you get "generated" ISK (ISK is introduced into the sandbox), as items or bounties.
- for killing people you get ISK from other players eventually, or ISK by that player (also in form of items)
- being killed costs you ISK in form of items (and ships). ISK is REMOVED from the sandbox.
payment.
- you pay for being able to use this game and get 30 days of "movement time".
- you also pay for the game spawning you ingame money on missions or mining. well. this is not explicitly stated. but it seems to be in the mechanics.
- you also pay for the development and maintenance of THIS game.
PLEX.
- you can buy gametime and sell it ingame, therefore benefiting from another players resources.
aesthetics.
- earning additional isk or mining additional resources can benefit others, since otherwise it would take ages to get where you want to get.
______
everything beyond this line changed by AUR would not make a difference. if you have goldened your lasers with AUR, and it is built ingame (like you need prototypes for tech2), or if you just change your appearance in the avatar, really, nobody cares about.
any direct influence into the dynamics by player money should not be allowed.
influence into mechanics is done by petitions.
what CCP cant influence are the final result. the aesthetics of the game. thats where social interaction, scams, tutorials and carebears, etc. come into play.
basicly speaking, changes that allow you to change the dynamics of the game simply by paying, not only is hazardous for the market, it is also a direct violation of game design principles and will result in different aesthetics of the game, any influence there will affect the whole unexpectably.
on a side note: if somebody uses plex/AUR to make lasers golden which already existed in the game and resell them on the market, this would NOT affect the balance. it would only require more ingame time to generate enough isk to have golden lasers.
which, besides being golden, should not have any other effect.
(this does already work for "vanity colors" on uo servers e.g., where you can get a hue normally not obtainable ingame to hue something in different colors. it does not affect the market on the long run.)
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 04:43:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Khamelean
The main concern seems to be the destabilisation of the market, the moment something iss added to the store that takes away from other payers experience, you have a problem.
The biggest problem I see is the substitution of external ergs for ingame ergs. LP reflects time spent running missions, for example, while Aurum reflects money that someone has made while not playing the game.
Someone running missions contributes to the virtual world through their mere presence: an extra face to make a system look less crowded, a conversation partner from time to time, a gank target, another mission runner competing for value from the same LP store, and ISK faucet, a consumer of ammunition, etc.
Someone pouring money into the game doesn't participate in the virtual world except to inject new items of value.
Even if those items are created by destroying existing items (trading Machariel for NeX Supership), the extra value of those items has been created (the extra 5% firing rate, the extra capacitor, etc) without capsuleer input.
This is a fundamental argument against "power items" in the Noble Exchange.
Originally by: A Classic Joke
At a classy party, this guy approaches a woman and says, "Hey, will you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
The woman thinks for moment and says, "Yes, for a million dollars I would have sex with you."
"Alright!" says the guy, 'What about one dollar?"
"What kind of woman do you think I am?" exclaims the woman
"Oh, we've established that ma'am, now we're just negotiating a price!"
Once you start accepting the exchange of out-of-game work for in-game work, the question just becomes "how much"?
Would it be acceptable to charge enough Aurum for an item to cover the amount of ingame time an average capsuleer would require to grind the LP required to buy a similar item? Take the CNR for example - it costs 600k LP, 1 Raven and a Nexus chip. We could switch LP for Aurum at the rate of, say, 6k LP/hr. Thus a CNR is "worth" 100 hours worth of LP. If an "average" mission runner grinds missions for three hours a day, that CNR might be worth about 3800 Aurum.
What if you value Aurum as a real world currency equivalent instead? Which currency? What average wage? Let's settle for [spin the bottle] the USA, with an average wage of $30kpa. That translates somewhat roughly into an hourly wage of about $15/hr. So the Aurum equivalent for the CNR would have to be priced at $1500 worth of Aurum, or roughly 300000 Aurum.
Is either approach acceptable? How much handwaving is acceptable? Should Aurum values be really high to restrict the number of people exchanging real currency for items? Should we be making calculations based on the lowest or highest salaries in the world?
For some people, there is no acceptable exchange rate. They want the virtual world to be run and judged by the virtual lives of the virtual people that inhabit it. These are people such as Liang Nuren and co ù people who have quit the game because they don't want RL money tainting the sandpit.
From my perspective, it is acceptable to exchange out-of-game ergs for in-game ergs. This discourages people from spending all their spare time on the game when they could get a better ingame advantage starting their own business in the real world, rather than sitting in front of their computer for four hours a night.
It just comes down to a matter of negotiating a price. I'd be happy with a "+5% CNR" that cost 300000 Aurum + Raven + Nexus chip. I would be appalled at a "+5% CNR" that only cost 30000 Aurum + Raven + Nexus chip. Since there are already people complaining that a monocle costs the equivalent of $70, I can only imagine how much they would bleat and whine about a 300k Aurum ship until CCP caves and lowers the price.
Thus I take the same stance as Liang & co: there is no satisfactory price. Just say no to NeX power items.
[ Australian players join channel ANZAC ] |
Angeliena
Caldari
Eye of God
Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 17:40:00 -
[96]
Op is correct. But, his point is mainly valid because or the HUGE about of mass BOTting in EVE this fact make the equation PLEX = MT true where without the mass botting Plex = MT would be false.
CCP never bothered to even try to fix this with simple changes like ensuring more webbing and pointing elite frigate spawns in 0.0 and low sec.
|
Maverick2011
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 18:10:00 -
[97]
Well buying PLEX unless used to support a single account user is a way to RMT or dribbling the real time skill system in the game.
PLEX users that dont use it for the sole purpose of paying their own account will cry how its legal and its not RMT and its not cheating the game mechanics but it still is.
Yea MT will be pretty much the same, even being sold to make more money off others and convert in game time.
|
Neoexecutor
Minmatar
Skynet Technologies
|
Posted - 2011.07.01 18:59:00 -
[98]
Besides negative effects on game economy that a cash shop would create, there's also the issue of CCP devoting development resources to making all the cool new content only available through cash shop. Game being developed with intentional inconveniences (like saved fitting limit) that can be then circumvented with purchasable "services".
|
Syrril
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 02:11:00 -
[99]
This was well thought out. I enjoyed reading this thread while I was at work today with absolutely nothing to do. Thanks to Malcanis, Akita, and all the others who have discussed this issue calmly and intelligently. I am impressed, and I think this deserves a little bump. :)
|
Abdiel Kavash
Caldari
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.07.02 02:27:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Abdiel Kavash on 02/07/2011 02:27:51
If we agree that being able to buy an item which has to be obtained using in-game work for out-of-game money would be in this or that way detrimental, here is an interesting question:
What if CCP introduced an in-game way, no matter how difficult or contrived, to manufacture a PLEX? Let's say that the amount of time/effort this took would be [ the same | less than | more than ] the time it takes the average player to make 380M worth of ISK?
---
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.07.14 05:47:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Syrril
This was well thought out. I enjoyed reading this thread while I was at work today with absolutely nothing to do. Thanks to Malcanis, Akita, and all the others who have discussed this issue calmly and intelligently. I am impressed, and I think this deserves a little bump. :)
How kind of you to say so.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Erim Solfara
Amarr
inFluX.
|
Posted - 2011.07.14 11:28:00 -
[102]
Read the first full page, posting in support of a brilliantly explained point in the OP, and a patient and thorough defence of it.
Good on you Malcanis, enjoy the bump.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |