That analogy fails because people who eat steak don't do so at the expense of those who eat the salad, while in EVE, the issue is a lot more contentious because one player's buff is often another player's nerf.

Let me pose a hypothetical to you Trebor, would you support in game ads to drive revenue for CCP to possibly hire more devs to fix other parts of the game? Would you support "gold ammo," ie, superior caliber equipment bought with real money, to help drive revenues with the same aim? If not, what is the "limiting principle"?

So: gold ammo, ads, stuff designed to force players to buy PLEXes/AURUM -- bad.

Now I'm actually curious about your opinion - what about cosmetic microtransaction type of stuff? Buy ship skins/decals/etc with aurum (which could then be sold for isk on the markets as well). Essentially the same thing as the clothes already in the NEx store, but for your ships.

Now I'm actually curious about your opinion - what about cosmetic microtransaction type of stuff? Buy ship skins/decals/etc with aurum (which could then be sold for isk on the markets as well). Essentially the same thing as the clothes already in the NEx store, but for your ships.

I have no problems with "non-game affecting" stuff like this in general (and these things have been thrashed out in CSM summits several times).

Where it gets a bit iffy is if CCP started cannibalizing regular developer resources into producing "fancy hat" items -- and that is a very fuzzy judgment call.

Putting on my fancy businessman's hat, what I would hope CCP would do is some cautious and cheap experiments to determine if there's sufficient demand to warrant investing resources in the project, and if so, expand the relevant departments (or outsource) so they can meet the demand without impairing their ability to improve the game.

Or in other words, the people who want to pimp their rides shouldn't subsidize the people who are happy with the factory paint job.

Gotta have something to keep the art team busy when they're not making new ships or talking about how much they hate the idea of rebuilding the naglfar's model, right? Sounds like a perfect task.

You will have my vote, clearly you are one of the few candidates that

a) Have the experience in game design
b) Have provided a continued and stable voice in the CSM for a number of years now.

Now I'm actually curious about your opinion - what about cosmetic microtransaction type of stuff? Buy ship skins/decals/etc with aurum (which could then be sold for isk on the markets as well). Essentially the same thing as the clothes already in the NEx store, but for your ships.

This isn't anywhere near Eve-like enough.

There should be sections of the AURUM store gated by faction standings and only available in specific stations that sell pigments and solvents and paint BPOs (Colours like black and pink obviously come from pirate faction stores). Once you've made some coloured paint you sell it on (for ISK) to another player who has trained paint scheme design to V to be able to use 5 different colours in a pattern and bought a pattern BPO (obviously from another faction standing gated AURUM store). That player then sells the paint scheme on the ISK market to the end user who applies it (after training painting V for the 5 colour scheme and ship customisation I for the ability to add one customisation obviously).

You could make clothes the same way with added steps for making thread and cloth.

Because obviously, no one has liked the last two expansions. . .

CSM7 has been a failure

The argument that things are "toxic" (either internally or between CSM and CCP) is highly amusing. CSM7 has significantly more influence with CCP than any previous CSM, and when CCP announces what's going to be in the Summer expansion at PAX East, I think people are going to be pretty happy with what we managed to do -- and the "lame ducks" of CSM7 will keep on working as a CCP stakeholder (working directly with one of the development teams) until the day they leave office.

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?

What evidence would you accept?

Apparently its a page from the future.

As in the free beer at Pax East is suppose to win over the players, as well as the next expansion information tell all or something.
Suppose to redeem CSM 7.

Just for a few more days, that trolling will be allowed or so.

I for one, am ready for the cockteasing.

[quote=Malcanis][quote=Frying Doom][quote= Trebor Daehdoow] . . .

Anecdotal Evidence

The argument draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion (often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion).

see also: rhetoric

rhet-+o-+ric
[ret-er-ik]
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

You really should stop posting with your alt Trebor.

But as usual you cannot defend yourself from the truth.

Like most patches, I will not praise it until after it is released.

We have seen enough crap wrapped in a bow over the years.

But as usual you cannot defend yourself from the truth.

Mittens begins with some "realtalk". As anyone who knows him well will tell you, this is code for "propaganda". For example, he implies that because I'm the only incumbent running for re-election (which is not quite correct; I am the only incumbent who has declared that they are running), CSM7 has been a failure, and the CSM/CCP relationship has deteriorated.

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?

No one can show 'evidence' that CSM 7 was or was not a failure. Not unless there is a governing entity that set specific measurable goals for CSM which we can then compare and see if they were met. Obviously that isn't the case so since we have no defined parameters to denote failure or success it's going to be opinion, and you can't 'prove' opinion.

It's also not fair to point to certain changes in the game and blame the CSM if you don't like them. The CSM provides feedback to CCP but ultimately it's always up to CCP to take it or not. Often times the feedback is going to be mixed between the different delegates.

In order words, the CSM is not responsible for every change to the game that occurs during their term. They are not the game developers. Would a certain change have not happened if the CSM was different? We don't have that information.

Everyone will have their own opinion of how successful they feel CSM7 was or was not. Some of those opinions will be more informed than others, but it's still an opinion until someone can provide a measurable statistic of success.

[I guess it all comes down to what your interpretation of success and failure is and what your expectations of the CSM is.

the community reaction to CCP's announcements about the Summer expansion at PAX East tomorrow.