EVE Search - MASS-PROTEST AGAINST EXPLORING THE CHARACTER BAZAAR & SKILL TRAD...

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

MASS-PROTEST AGAINST EXPLORING THE CHARACTER BAZAAR & SKILL TRAD...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mallak Azaria GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6519	Posted - 2015.11.17 13:04:38 - [331] - Quote I have never said this before & never thought I would, but here it is: This idea from CCP is actually well thought out straight out of the box & I see no issues with this. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Yolandar Estrogen Industrial Enterprises 84	Posted - 2015.11.17 15:24:08 - [332] - Quote BRAINS!!!
Yolandar Estrogen Industrial Enterprises 85	Posted - 2015.11.18 01:18:24 - [333] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Waiting for sib's next paper-thin bleeding-heart rebuttal First post without "I" or "ME" Empathy is hard?
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 32805	Posted - 2015.11.18 01:40:12 - [334] - Quote Worrying about other people's hypothetical situations is the basis of most of the dissent in this thread so far. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Yolandar Estrogen Industrial Enterprises 85	Posted - 2015.11.18 02:02:52 - [335] - Quote Rain6637 wrote: Worrying about other people's hypothetical situations is the basis of most of the dissent in this thread so far. I still care enough to worry about yours.
Globby ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 279	Posted - 2015.11.18 02:29:01 - [336] - Quote good job ccp, this and the input broadcasting changes have completely fixed the game and made up for phoebe 110% or something
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 32806	Posted - 2015.11.18 18:34:36 - [337] - Quote Yolandar wrote: Rain6637 wrote: Worrying about other people's hypothetical situations is the basis of most of the dissent in this thread so far. I still care enough to worry about yours. ooh burnnned. In other news, what was your post supposed to even mean. Help, I can't download EVE President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
E1ev1n Unknown Crusade 7	Posted - 2015.11.21 21:32:28 - [338] - Quote I think the idea of a Mass protest against change is not a reasonable thing to do look at all the changes that have been positive in the last few years, lets continue the positive and suggest better ways to implement what CCP wants to do.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6861	Posted - 2015.11.22 16:54:56 - [339] - Quote Globby wrote: good job ccp, this and the input broadcasting changes have completely fixed the game and made up for phoebe 110% or something The input broadcasting change was definitely the easier of the two to implement Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Jenshae Chiroptera 2426	Posted - 2015.11.22 18:06:56 - [340] - Quote E1ev1n wrote: I think the idea of a Mass protest against change is not a reasonable thing to do look at all the changes that have been positive in the last few years, lets continue the positive and suggest better ways to implement what CCP wants to do. This is CCP's modus operandi. Throw up horrible idea on the community. Wait for the rage to cool down. Sift through the suggested compromises. Find the one closests to their plans and possibly make it even closer. Implement this and watch online figures drop a bit more. Sit around wondering why this happened then repeat the cycle. This SP vampirism will benefit the rich veterans the most and make the gap between them and newbies larger. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Avvy Republic University Minmatar Republic 231	Posted - 2015.11.22 18:54:08 - [341] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: This SP vampirism will benefit the rich veterans the most and make the gap between them and newbies larger. So not really any different to the bazaar then, which they are supposed to replace. Edit: Hence the diminishing returns and hopefully an sp cap for there use. The new system does add an interesting side effect. A rich corp. could strengthen their forces over night if there were enough sp packets available.
Marsha Mallow 2747	Posted - 2015.11.23 00:35:36 - [342] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: This is CCP's modus operandi. Throw up horrible idea on the community. Wait for the rage to cool down. Sift through the suggested compromises. Find the one closests to their plans and possibly make it even closer. Implement this and watch online figures drop a bit more. Sit around wondering why this happened then repeat the cycle. That's not quite true. In fact it's utterly false. The big changes of the last year were sourced from the community, proposed by CCP and the hysterical raging during the proposal phase was largely ignored in favour of iterating and tweaking once implemented. There hasn't been a series of compromise deployments recently because in principal the big changes have had support from key community leaders and thinkers who were actually the source for the ideas in the first place. If you pay attention to the major feedback threads you'll notice the incoherent raging is largely from imbeciles who only take to the forums to pitchfork wave and are almost invariably ignored. The constructive remarks came from people who consistently participate in those types of idea-driven discussions, and it's generally those types who get proposed adjustments and tweaks implemented. There is also a noticeable trend towards diminishing waves of hysteria since this cycle started and increasing bitterness from those whose only method of negotiation with CCP is to throw massive tantrums and engage in divisive campaigns. I'm probably missing a few but the big changes in order in the last 12-18 months: Crius - Indy changes -> slight tweaks between proposal and implementation, removal of teams post deployment Phoebe - power projection changes -> Jump freighters ringfenced from PP adjustment, fatigue reduction post deployment Input automation - Isboxer nerf -> extended to macro use after initial proposal, no change post deployment Aegis - sov revamp -> tweaks ongoing post deployment Tradeable SP - ?? Tradable SP has split the side of the community who participate in this type of design discussion. Partly because it wasn't as high a profile topic as the others and may have taken some of them by surprise, but mainly because of the ties to the microtransaction topic which is perceived as a no-go area. But some of the negative reaction was a knee-jerk in surprise and concern that the wider community might reject the concept and attack CCP (which has proved to be false). Some are massively supportive, some concerned about the potential effects, but no-one with any credibility is having hysterics and threatening to rage quit/riot over this. Other than Sib I'm not seeing any of the people who give constructive feedback and who have doubts write anything up over this proposal beyond 'I don't personally like this' where the supporters have written at length. If they can't take the time to give a more detailed criticism that CCP will take on board and build into a future deployment it's likely that they don't have anything relevant to add beyond a personal reaction, or are reluctant to speculate about wider effects because they don't have enough data to comment. Also, the playerbase have had CCP bent over since Incarna over design direction whilst simultaneously taking design mechanics to such extremes they are game-breaking. The PCU started dropping a long time ago, and I'd question whether that isn't the result of players engaging in activity which alienates/aggravates large portions of the playerbase. Examples Isboxer - Greed is Good, let's all bot, semi-legally and claim it's a legit playstyle OTEC - let's converge into two mega-coalitions and fight proxy wars, everyone else can be renters The Big Blue Donut - Dominion sov is too grindy, let's blue everyone and engage in phoney wars instead, we'll fight on the forums and pretend it matters HIghsec deserves to be punished - let's farm it to death via ganking and perma decs, that'll teach em they're playing wrong Supercaps online - supers are the only way to 'win' EvE, if you don't have one, you can't play - click my referral link pls Plexes - let's use these as passive income streams and drive those reliant upon them to unsub, if anyone complains be sure to say #nopoors, and tell them to get a job The only fights worth having involve 2000 players, and we only want to do this at most every six months. We demand CCP accommodate our vision for the most ridiculously boring type of battle, because the dozen people on field/touching their epeen enjoyed it. And they can kick members who complain. Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: This SP vampirism will benefit the rich veterans the most and make the gap between them and newbies larger. Can you please back this statement up with some numbers, or evidence. Rich vets already have high SP alts. If anything a proposal like this narrows the gap between them and newer players with either RL funds to sink into purchased SP, or time to grind the ISK ingame to purchase it via activity. The only people likely to lose out are those Sib has identified as unable to commit RL funds or time to ingame ISK making activities. I'd still like to know exactly how this increases the SP gap when passive SP acquisition remains constant and isn't scheduled for change. Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.
Jill Xelitras Xeltec services 475	Posted - 2015.11.23 02:04:30 - [343] - Quote Marsha Mallow wrote: (snip)There hasn't been a series of compromise deployments recently because in principal the big changes have had support from key community leaders and thinkers who were actually the source for the ideas in the first place. If you pay attention to the major feedback threads you'll notice the incoherent raging is largely from imbeciles who only take to the forums to pitchfork wave and are almost invariably ignored. The constructive remarks came from people who consistently participate in those types of idea-driven discussions, and it's generally those types who get proposed adjustments and tweaks implemented. There is also a noticeable trend towards diminishing waves of hysteria since this cycle started and increasing bitterness from those whose only method of negotiation with CCP is to throw massive tantrums and engage in divisive campaigns. I'm probably missing a few but the big changes in order in the last 12-18 months: Crius - Indy changes -> slight tweaks between proposal and implementation, removal of teams post deployment Phoebe - power projection changes -> Jump freighters ringfenced from PP adjustment, fatigue reduction post deployment Input automation - Isboxer nerf -> extended to macro use after initial proposal, no change post deployment Aegis - sov revamp -> tweaks ongoing post deployment Tradeable SP - ?? Tradable SP has split the side of the community who participate in this type of design discussion. Partly because it wasn't as high a profile topic as the others and may have taken some of them by surprise, but mainly because of the ties to the microtransaction topic which is perceived as a no-go area. But some of the negative reaction was a knee-jerk in surprise and concern that the wider community might reject the concept and attack CCP (which has proved to be false). Some are massively supportive, some concerned about the potential effects, but no-one with any credibility is having hysterics and threatening to rage quit/riot over this. Other than Sib I'm not seeing any of the people who give constructive feedback and who have doubts write anything up over this proposal beyond 'I don't personally like this' where the supporters have written at length. If they can't take the time to give a more detailed criticism that CCP will take on board and build into a future deployment it's likely that they don't have anything relevant to add beyond a personal reaction, or are reluctant to speculate about wider effects because they don't have enough data to comment. Also, the playerbase have had CCP bent over since Incarna over design direction whilst simultaneously taking design mechanics to such extremes they are game-breaking. The PCU started dropping a long time ago, and I'd question whether that isn't the result of players engaging in activity which alienates/aggravates large portions of the playerbase. Examples Isboxer - Greed is Good, let's all bot, semi-legally and claim it's a legit playstyle OTEC - let's converge into two mega-coalitions and fight proxy wars, everyone else can be renters The Big Blue Donut - Dominion sov is too grindy, let's blue everyone and engage in phoney wars instead, we'll fight on the forums and pretend it matters HIghsec deserves to be punished - let's farm it to death via ganking and perma decs, that'll teach em they're playing wrong Supercaps online - supers are the only way to 'win' EvE, if you don't have one, you can't play - click my referral link pls Plexes - let's use these as passive income streams and drive those reliant upon them to unsub, if anyone complains be sure to say #nopoors, and tell them to get a job The only fights worth having involve 2000 players, and we only want to do this at most every six months. We demand CCP accommodate our vision for the most ridiculously boring type of battle, because the dozen people on field/touching their epeen enjoyed it. And they can kick members who complain. (snip) The only people likely to lose out are those Sib has identified as unable to commit RL funds or time to ingame ISK making activities. I'd still like to know exactly how this increases the SP gap when passive SP acquisition remains constant and isn't scheduled for change. This post and Sibyyl's extensive post on SPT are now part of my sig for a limited time. I don't fully agree with everything you say Miss Mallow, but this list of possibly aggravating player activity is certainly worth considering in related discussions. Speaking of "related", are you in any way related to spoiler alert, if you plan to read "Foundation" (contains spoilers)Hober Mallow ? PCU discussion Marsha's post, SP discussion Sibyyl's post opinions = onions*pi
Paul Pohl blue media poetry 30	Posted - 2015.11.23 04:16:39 - [344] - Quote Ashterothi wrote: Where do I go to protest the protesters? you just keep calm and carry on
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6861	Posted - 2015.11.23 05:16:57 - [345] - Quote Mass protest against the mass-protest against exploring the character bazaar Every change leaves the badguys just about to fall. We just need more coalitions to exist to destroy them, more legions to be paid off, more lasersov, more something!!
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 190	Posted - 2015.11.23 06:38:51 - [346] - Quote I see a few main concerns with the SP concept as presented: 1. As argued unchallenged by Tippia, it breaks the in-game mechanics. I think "bypassed" was the term used, and I won't rehash it here (you can find it for yourself in the main feedback thread). This argument refers to the characters in the game. 2. Because the SP are being monetized, this will most likely widen the gap between "rich" and "poor" in the Eve financial landscape. Rather than benefit the "middle-class" as I think it should be intended, it will further reward those who have the most wealth. This argument refers to the people who play. 3. Hypothesized by some, is the long-term direction of the Eve game and CCP's incorporation of it's other assets (Dust, Valkyrie...) into a larger symbiotic system. We don't necessarily have the full context of this system and can only guess as to where it will lead. The SP proposal is (imho) not good in the current Eve game system. But with all the changes to come, it just may be a viable option. Ultimately CCP will do what it wants to (and needs to). As consumers we have choices. I don't believe whining about it is a viable option. Argue well.
Top Guac Mexican Avacado Syndicate 28	Posted - 2015.11.23 07:06:55 - [347] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: I see a few main concerns with the SP concept as presented: 1. As argued unchallenged by Tippia, it breaks the in-game mechanics. I think "bypassed" was the term used, and I won't rehash it here (you can find it for yourself in the main feedback thread). This argument refers to the characters in the game. You can't spell Tippia, without PITA. Tippia goes unchallenged because there is no way to challenge him. Arguing with Tippia is like arguing with the Terminator. They are stronger and smarter than you in every way, but they lack emotion and cannot understand that logic is sometimes only part of an argument. The only thing key from your post is that CCP will do what it wants and clearly on this, CCP Seagull is all for the concept.
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids 26251	Posted - 2015.11.23 07:17:15 - [348] - Quote I agree, Marsha. Player suggestions for rule changes have been spectacular failures in action. We can argue all day long, but none of us are looking at the raw numbers and data that CCP is. I would like an answer to the RMT question that many have wondered about now. Why bother introducing something that increases (not decreases) RMT in the game? Why SP Trading is bad for EVE: Part 1 - Part 2
Kaldi Tsukaya Deveron Shipyards and Technology 190	Posted - 2015.11.23 07:28:03 - [349] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: I would like an answer to the RMT question that many have wondered about now. Why bother introducing something that increases (not decreases) RMT in the game? Eliminate the profit motive (for players) and just let CCP sell the packets for AUR. That now becomes microtransactions, however, yet eliminates the 'greed' issues with the proposal. Damned if you do...
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids 26254	Posted - 2015.11.23 16:47:22 - [350] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Eliminate the profit motive (for players) and just let CCP sell the packets for AUR. That now becomes microtransactions, however, yet eliminates the 'greed' issues with the proposal. Damned if you do... The reason why players have protested microtransactions, it is because these mechanisms are open to wide abuse with enough ISK or RL money. Exposing Skill Points to that abuse will have a trickle down effect on every aspect of the game. (what's the effect? Wider separation of have's and have-not's) Why SP Trading is bad for EVE: Part 1 - Part 2
Frostys Virpio KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2403	Posted - 2015.11.23 19:10:07 - [351] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: I agree, Marsha. Player suggestions for rule changes have been spectacular failures in action. We can argue all day long, but none of us are looking at the raw numbers and data that CCP is. I would like an answer to the RMT question that many have wondered about now. Why bother introducing something that increases (not decreases) RMT in the game? Why would it increase RMT? PLEX is a micro-transaction and it reduced the RMT. Why would skill packets do the opposite, especially if they can be put on the market after being created?
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids 26256	Posted - 2015.11.23 20:42:05 - [352] - Quote PLEX reduces RMT because it provides a competitively priced alternative to RMT: buy ISK legally from CCP itself. PLEX is an alternative because people can buy ISK without PLEX (i.e.: RMT). People can't buy SP today (it's not part of the game mechanics). When SP Trading is introduced, you are also opening up the path for SP to be traded for money (an RMT possibility didn't exist before). Since legal SP Trading will always be priced less competitively than the RMT alternative (since SP Trading is being introduced as a microtransactional source of income for CCP, not as an RMT preventer like PLEX) we're talking about a previously nonexistent pipe of RMT. I have my doubts as to how this RMT pipe can be policed. This RMT pipe, since it's new, will require additional policing resources. And how would you prove that any SP is RMT anyway? Why SP Trading is bad for EVE: Part 1 - Part 2
Jenn aSide Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore 13001	Posted - 2015.11.23 20:47:53 - [353] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Eliminate the profit motive (for players) and just let CCP sell the packets for AUR. That now becomes microtransactions, however, yet eliminates the 'greed' issues with the proposal. Damned if you do... The reason why players have protested microtransactions, it is because these mechanisms are open to wide abuse with enough ISK or RL money. Exposing Skill Points to that abuse will have a trickle down effect on every aspect of the game. (what's the effect? Wider separation of have's and have-not's) To be fair it remains to be seen what the affects would be (I agree with you, it doesn't look good though). But the MOST LIKELY outcomes are bad. Every time someone tries to do something 'for the children' it ends up helping the veterans (recent example is the SP boost, I hear people on my comms talking about how great it is to be not that far from a new mining or ratting or bomber alt compared to how it used to be lol). And yet it keeps happening. What does it take for people to learn "hey, this might not be the right way to go here"?
Asura Vajrarupa Anarchist Industrial Syndicate of New Eden 55	Posted - 2015.11.23 21:38:26 - [354] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: SP trading only introduces another mechanism for RMT trading, not prevent it. Preventing it isn't the point. There is actually no policy, rule change, or mechanic that can stop RMT. Designing game mechanics, or not designing them, to prevent RMT is wasteful and stupid. All changes to the game should be to enhance player experience, to make the game a better game! Any argument against SP trading that falls outside this fact is nonsensical. You could make the argument that stopping RMT makes the game a better game, but then you'd have to show that stopping RMT is possible. It isn't. A simple internet search will prove that. And even if you could, that doesn't mean you'd have a better game. And quite frankly, I haven't heard a decent argument against SP trading. It will help older characters isn't good enough. Everything helps older characters. Any change you make will help someone in a position to capitalize on it, and older characters fall into that group more than anyone else. People with money will have an advantage? They already do. This new mechanic doesn't change that fact. But really, what advantage? You can only train a skill so far for any given ship. More earnings potential? They can buy plex and sell it for isk, no change in that fact is brought on by blocking SP trading from becoming a reality. I get that change is scary but damn! You guys get anxious over the silliest of BS. Ignorance is the cause of suffering.
Zakks Zakks Shop 18	Posted - 2015.11.24 01:52:52 - [355] - Quote Asura Vajrarupa wrote: I get that change is scary but damn! You guys get anxious over the silliest of BS. The arguments against are solidly there. But you don't agree with them so dismiss them and the people making them by closing with an attack.
Sibyyl Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Squids 26261	Posted - 2015.11.24 03:42:21 - [356] - Quote Asura Vajrarupa wrote: Preventing it isn't the point. There is actually no policy, rule change, or mechanic that can stop RMT. Designing game mechanics, or not designing them, to prevent RMT is wasteful and stupid. I'll tell you about how you don't prevent RMT: by introducing another method to easily do so. And why introduce the method? To help newbros who are bored to death waiting for a ship doctrine to fly in? The logic does not follow. If that is a problem that needs to be solved (and no one is arguing it is a problem after the starting 400k SP bump) then it should be solved using un-tradable SP. Quote: All changes to the game should be to enhance player experience, to make the game a better game! Any argument against SP trading that falls outside this fact is nonsensical. Let me be very clear here, since it doesn't seem to be. You and I are players and offering our opinions. Neither of us are CCP employees (I hope!) and we don't control the IP or the game. What they decide to do is their right alone. I feel simply that I voice my opinion what I feel better adheres to the spirit of the game as CCP has themselves described it to us. Why SP Trading is bad for EVE: Part 1 - Part 2
Paul Pohl blue media poetry 30	Posted - 2015.11.24 04:02:00 - [357] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Eliminate the profit motive (for players) and just let CCP sell the packets for AUR. That now becomes microtransactions, however, yet eliminates the 'greed' issues with the proposal. Damned if you do... The reason why players have protested microtransactions, it is because these mechanisms are open to wide abuse with enough ISK or RL money. Exposing Skill Points to that abuse will have a trickle down effect on every aspect of the game. (what's the effect? Wider separation of have's and have-not's) Or a trickle up - since presumably it will be the haves selling their skills to the have nots
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1746	Posted - 2015.11.24 04:13:26 - [358] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: I'll tell you about how you don't prevent RMT: by introducing another method to easily do so. And why introduce the method? To help newbros who are bored to death waiting for a ship doctrine to fly in? The logic does not follow. If that is a problem that needs to be solved (and no one is arguing it is a problem after the starting 400k SP bump) then it should be solved using un-tradable SP. To be fair, there is no new method, just a new item which follows existing methods of RMT for all in game items. To suggest this is a comparatively detrimental RMT driver that subverts detection suggests: a) CCP has little to no means to detect any RMT activity involving in game items other than isk, b) this driver is one that somehow uniquely distinguishes itself from isk demand since that just routes back into another RMT mitigation, PLEX and c) that this driver be greater than any provided by the high prices of the Bazaar itself to obtain the needed isk at a lower RL price point than allowed by PLEX. While there could be some merits to the idea of direct sale only vs trading, if for cash only it just exasperates the issues between have's and have not's that forms the basis for most of the objections, and if for AUR, assuming the demand is sufficient to actually be an RMT driver while tradable, still remains an RMT driver for isk due to the isk > PLEX > AUR conversion (if not a sufficient driver it just comes down to whether player controlled availability beats infinite availability, which I'm on the fence about.). Side note: If item RMT is actually untraceable then so is isk trading due to items being redeemable for isk on market for those that have figured that out. Taking the train of thought that this is the case breaks any means of RMT policing against the smart. Jenn aSide wrote: To be fair it remains to be seen what the affects would be (I agree with you, it doesn't look good though). But the MOST LIKELY outcomes are bad. Every time someone tries to do something 'for the children' it ends up helping the veterans (recent example is the SP boost, I hear people on my comms talking about how great it is to be not that far from a new mining or ratting or bomber alt compared to how it used to be lol). And yet it keeps happening. What does it take for people to learn "hey, this might not be the right way to go here"? From where does the idea originate that vets can't be allowed to benefit from changes designed for new players? Your example doesn't deny the benefit to new players, just that older players can use it, which itself shouldn't be an issue since the capacity to control multiple alts now has a capacity limit (with the assumption of abiding by the EULA/TOS). The benefit for older players is capped here in the same method. There are only so many low SP slots vets have on their accounts and as such only so much use that can be had before the hit the efficiency limits designed to work against them. And again, it doesn't deny the potential to help new players or state why it wouldn't.
Jenshae Chiroptera 2429	Posted - 2015.11.25 22:08:17 - [359] - Quote Zakks wrote: Asura Vajrarupa wrote: I get that change is scary but damn! You guys get anxious over the silliest of BS. The arguments against are solidly there. . Indeed. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids There are other ways to fix Null Sec stagnation and Fozzie SOV is the wrong approach.
Marsha Mallow 2754	Posted - 2015.11.25 22:41:13 - [360] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Zakks wrote: Asura Vajrarupa wrote: I get that change is scary but damn! You guys get anxious over the silliest of BS. The arguments against are solidly there. . Indeed. Articulate them then. 'Grr CCP are teh dumb' isn't going to work. You were the first to start the #firefozzie crap, right here on GD btw. The arguments against that type of behaviour are also solid. Why don't you just write something up in relation to the mechanic, without the overt hostility towards anyone in particular? Sib, I wrote a longer post regarding RMT just as the forum crashed. I did save it, but looking at it I can't post it without being unintentionally rude/condescending. A few others might deserve that tone, but you don't and you might be onto something relevant. I can see the edges but not follow it through because I'm too close to the char trading market/recruitment side by default. If you could clarify what you mean by RMT in relation to this topic (i.e. inbound/outgoing), define the casual 'cash out' RMTers vs the professionals etc. I'd also really question that assumption that Plex/ETCs were put into game purely to curb RMT - despite the public citation. But you're throwing up multiple objections (AT/RMT/SP gap) and it's tough to orient in response. Drop me a mail if you like, I don't want to accidentally savage a legit point, and it reads like these are interlinked. Jill Xelitras wrote: Speaking of "related", are you in any way related to spoiler alert, if you plan to read "Foundation" (contains spoilers)Hober Mallow? I bought Marsha early on (legally) because the name amused me. Still does. Knowing they have more SP than I do isnGÇÖt going to stop me from taking the fight if I was going to take it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 .. 14 :: 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.