| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
   |
Posted - 2013.10.07 21:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:Proclus Diadochu wrote:Kate stark wrote:Orakkus wrote:I have read much of what has been written here about the situation.
To me this whole situation is a non-issue. It doesn't compare with the T2 Scandal or even the recent problem with the TOS. This is a waste of people's time to even be upset about. CCP rewarded Somer for their contributions to our community.. whether you LIKE them or NOT. CCP rewarded us recently with a whole bunch of new toys like the Gnosis and stuff, and didn't consider my feelings at all whether or not I liked you all getting one. And the Gnosis is actually useful, not a glorified white elephant of a prize like the Ishukone Watch Scorpion.
This is not an issue.
This is not even bad.
Move along and get to some real problems and stop wasting rage or brain power on this. so you're perfectly fine with CCP giving any one they want, anything they want, at any time they want, without a word? Firstly, they didn't give SOMER "anything they want, at any time they want, without a word". They gave them a crap T1 Scorp, as a gift, that was in no way gamebreaking in any way. Also, this is Eve, kiddo. You expecting fairness is laughable. that crap scorp sells for the build price of a supercarrier 
It is in no way CCP's fault that someone would buy a scorpion for the price of a supercarrier. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 21:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Kate stark wrote:samualvimes wrote:Frying Doom wrote:I believe this thread has really shown why we no longer need the CSM.
They are meant to be the voice of the players
But once again the players are outraged by CCPs actions and the CSM is acting as the voice of CCP.
They seem to follow the pattern of writing a public communication to CCP on the incident then instantly defending CCP. It is like they originally condemn CCPs actions so they can later point to it and say "Look we did register our disapproval".
Honestly do we really need a voice for the players, that is never actually for the players? Whether all this is wrong or not aside, it is only two of the csm saying they think the gifts were Ok. Hardly the whole csm! I actually prefer a csm that will have differences. It's makes sure there's debate. half of the csm have demonstrated they don't even know why we're upset. they can debate all they want, if they have no idea what they are meant to be debating they are the eve equivalent of a chocolate teapot.
That's just another way of saying they don't agree with the reasoning presented. I seriously doubt that they lack the ability to comprehend the arguments put forth, but understanding alone doesn't put weight to the argument in front of the listener. Similarly I have little doubt that Malc himself feels many have no idea why they are fine with it in similar fashion given his attempts at explaining and the tone of his departure from the thread. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 21:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:people were paying that much because they thought there were a fixed number available. noone knew about the extra 33% supply that CCP magic'ed out of thin air for somer cause somer told everyone to keep it a secret so that they could maximize their profits
That makes the issue the lack of transparency and a continuation of the issue of the re-release of items understood to be unique (whether CCP intended/stated or not). The gifting of the ships themselves becomes a non-issue for that reasoning. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 21:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Minus the ability to produce them you mean.
The only thing determined by the lack of production is that the ship will have an increased price compared to it's normal counterpart. The extent of the price increase is a function of how many people want it and what amount of isk they are willing to throw at it. CCP has no control over the latter 2 factors. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 22:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Money Makin Mitch wrote:people were paying that much because they thought there were a fixed number available. noone knew about the extra 33% supply that CCP magic'ed out of thin air for somer cause somer told everyone to keep it a secret so that they could maximize their profits That makes the issue the lack of transparency and a continuation of the issue of the re-release of items understood to be unique (whether CCP intended/stated or not). The gifting of the ships themselves becomes a non-issue for that reasoning. the gifting is still very much an issue. the devs should not be giving in-game assets to anybody, especially 'just because', which is essentially what this was. the lack of transparency and insider trading just makes it even worse. and yes, this was basically an isk injection... why else would you give 30 of a 'limited' ship on the downlow to a group if not for them to sell them? somer seems to have understood this perfectly, hence asking for the sales to be done slowly and quietly.
CCP has the ability to create criteria for giving the ship away at will. That much we know. The exact specifics of those criteria I'd wager we do not, thus saying they gave it out "just because" is speculative at best. I'd also like to point you to the alliance tournament which gives out ships according to an arbitrary ruleset created and modified by CCP at will.
Your conclusions on the reasonings is speculative as well. If I owned something of as significant a level of scarcity I'd not want much publicity about it as well. And that has to do with my intent to keep the item, not sell it. I can't individually be pursued for something no one knows I have.
Also, this was not isk injection. The only way it can become isk injection is to destroy the ships, making the majority of their perceived value unrecoverable. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 22:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Minus the ability to produce them you mean. The only thing determined by the lack of production is that the ship will have an increased price compared to it's normal counterpart. The extent of the price increase is a function of how many people want it and what amount of isk they are willing to throw at it. CCP has no control over the latter 2 factors. throwing an additional 30 into the sandbox secretly, while everyone else believes there are only around 90, is something that was only in CCP's control. naturally, the increase in supply would drop the price per unit, so CCP devalued the item for everyone else when they did this. somer understood, that's why they had their employees selling them quietly, for ~6 weeks.
That isn't necessarily true. I doubt there would be a terribly significant price difference between 90 and 120 units in existence. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 23:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:It's true that we don't know the criteria, but any criteria which result in ingame competitive for-profit organizations getting handed significant ingame valuables are bantha poodoo. I won't pretend to agree with the decision from a standpoint of who is the most deserving. That said CCP's ability to provide assets on their terms does exist and will continue to exist.
Quote:I don't know why the AT is used so often as a comparison, it doesn't fit at all. The ruleset of the AT is created in advance and it's open to everyone. It's not fundamentally different from e.g. mission running or almost any other activity in the game. The significant difference to the giveaways we're discussing here is that CCP doesn't pick the winner. The AT keeps being used because it's a manner in which CCP arbitrarily sets up rules to release unique sets of items to individuals. It's relevant because it demonstrates CCP can and will do so as they see fit. Choosing the recipient outright from whatever criteria they have is fundamentally no different since the competition is the game and metagame at large rather than a 150km bubble.
Quote:Please don't nitpick on words, items and ISK are interchangeable. Somer had the chance to sell the ships for ISK, they even could sell them for inflated prices for almost 2 months cause nobody except them knew that there were more of the ships. See below.
Quote:Your doubt is purely speculative. And thus no less substantial than most of the complaints. Either way we know with past slow introductions of limited number items that trade values do not always react directly or immediately with changes in supply. We're still dealing with an item with a similar level of scarcity, so I'm not yet convinced that this has in any way played out as you describe. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
769
|
Posted - 2013.10.07 23:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:I'm not disagreeing on who is most deserving (well that too, but that's beside the point), my point is that an ingame competitive for-profit organization can't ever be deserving of getting CCP support. Eve isn't supposed to make moral judgements but provide a framework for interaction. Since the game doesn't judge ones purpose, why should CCP? While there are other organizations I would reward before blink, it would be because of their impact on the game and the players, not because of their motivation or profitability.
Quote:Nobody disagrees that CCP can and will do this and nobody has any issues with it, so it is kinda irrelevant. But they are. They are saying this was blatantly improper, to the point of accusations of professional misconduct. Granted they can't enforce their opinions, but that clearly doesn't stand in the way of public condemnation.
Quote:Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition. That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist. They apparently disagree. Rightfully so, since, as everyone points out, this game has an unscripted element to it, it should be well within CCP's ability to reward things they find exceptional regardless of whether they specifically defined it or not. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 00:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Quote:Of course it's fundamentally different. The exact criteria of a competition have to be known by everyone in advance or there is no fair competition. Arguably, if nobody except CCP even knew that there is a competition then there is no competition. That would mean CCP's ability to recognize player organizations outside of set competitions doesn't exist. They apparently disagree. Rightfully so, since, as everyone points out, this game has an unscripted element to it, it should be well within CCP's ability to reward things they find exceptional regardless of whether they specifically defined it or not. You can have one of two things. Either you arbitrarily (i.e. without set criteria) hand out stuff to player corps, or you have a sandbox universe built and run by combined efforts of players. If CCP wants to go with the former, they should stop advertising their game as the latter.
This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events). That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 00:33:00 -
[10] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:It's not counter intuitive at all and of course the 2 things are mutually exclusive. The whole point of a sandbox is that the parents don't interfere.
Funny thing, your reasoning here:Quote:Exactly, and it's possible because of Eve's sandbox nature. And every time CCP unnecessarily messes with the sandbox (e.g. by distorting competition when supporting one group of players) the game becomes less sandbox and more themepark. Suggests that AT rewards would not be allowed as they would still potentially distort economic parity between to competing entities. When referees don't interfere, they don't interfere. The AT is an interference to the sandbox as are it's rewards.
Any reward not earned in game with participation available to all entities in game under the full set of game rules (and freedoms) is a distortion of the sandbox. So why are some permissible and others not? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 00:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:This would mean the only content CCP can reward is non-sandbox content (alliance tournament and other arbitrarily constricted events). That seems rather counter intuitive to the nature of the game. I do not believe the 2 are as wholly incompatible as you state. They can reward whatever they want, as long as there are clear, publicly available rules about it. Not on the basis of "we like you" and behind closed doors.
The only part I can agree with is the not behind closed doors part. The ability to reward things you find exceptional goes hand in hand with things you didn't anticipate coming out of players of the game. As such you have no real means to set criteria for being chosen that have any real meaning. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 01:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Suggests that AT rewards would not be allowed as they would still potentially distort economic parity between to competing entities. When referees don't interfere, they don't interfere. The AT is an interference to the sandbox as are it's rewards.
Any reward not earned in game with participation available to all entities in game under the full set of game rules (and freedoms) is a distortion of the sandbox. So why are some permissible and others not? Everyone who has ever played Eve must have noticed within 5 minutes that it has some themepark elements and the AT is by far not the biggest one, PvE content is absolutely dwarfing that. But it's not a problem for the integrity of the sandbox because all these themepark elements are available to all entities in game under precise rules known by everyone in advance. And when the referees change the rules they don't support or punish anyone in particular. This is the difference between referees changing rules between seasons to make the game more interesting and referees giving extra points to one of the teams. You see the difference?
PvE content hardly dwarfs the AT in regard to how unsandboxy it is, but that is not really significant here (and isn't really themeparkish anyways, though that's another topic). Your contention for the reason this was bad was it's effect on one side of a competition. AT rewards have that same effect. Now you propose that so long as there is a specifically stated framework, unsandboxlike as it is, the effect of those rewards is acceptable. Furthermore a sandbox game's creators should only reward content that is the opposite of intended eve gameplay.
By that logic the next up for unique ship handouts should be miners for excessive complaining about gankers. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 01:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote:Quote:AT rewards don't break the sandbox. Why would they? Anyone can compete. As I understand I cannot as I am not a part of a player alliance, additionally there are a limited number of slots, and furthermore a limited number of matches and players per match. The vast majority of the game is excluded from competing.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
770
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 01:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Quote:They aren't promoting aspects of the game. They're promoting specific groups of players of the game. Big difference. The EXACT same thing can be said about tournament prizes. Alliance or otherwise. And as for your comment about "messing with the sandbox", again, not true. AT rewards don't break the sandbox. Chribba being allowed to have the Veldnaught doesn't break the sandbox. Gnosis battlecruisers don't break the sandbox. Genolution implants... well, you get the point. They are completely different. For example would you be happy if they suddenly gave 200 carriers to Goonswarm for their contributions to the community? or how about some T2 BPOs. Or how about CCP gave them some limited items that sold for hundreds of billions which they then decided to sell and buy those T2 BPOs or Carriers with? Giving rewards to a specific group is a lot different to giving everyone the same thing or giving the AT tournament winners a ship, especially as they have to pay for entry.
200 Carriers? I'd be fine with that. T2 BPO's not so much, new items that have the capacity to provide continued additional value would be an issue. Selling them for BPO's is similarly a non issue. The capacity was there and probably being used to begin with, so it being in their hands is no more an issue than it being in someone else'. I see no issue with CCP rewarding players or organizations they find exceptional. |
| |
|