|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
   |
Posted - 2008.10.08 00:34:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Still don't grasp it eh? The issue is fairness, not charity.
|
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 01:12:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
And in this area Eve is not but could and should be.
I don't think so
|
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 01:52:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kransthow on 08/10/2008 01:53:06
Your neighbour wins the lottery one week, you were overseas and unable to purchase a ticket. You come back from overseas the next week and want some money too, so you go to the local dairy to buy a lottery ticket but unfortunately the lottery company went bankrupt and will no longer run lotterys. Should your neighbour have his winnings removed?
inb4 eve isn't real life
|
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 10:32:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Kransthow
Should your neighbour have his winnings removed?
No.
But what's that got to do with anything?
Sigh I guess you don't understand metaphors
here you go then:
Your friend wins the T2 bpo lottery, you haven't started playing eve yet but your friend talks you into it. You sign up for eve but the same week you join the T2 bpo lottery is removed and invention created. Should your friend have his T2 BPO removed?
|
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 05:05:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Kransthow
Should your neighbour have his winnings removed?
No.
Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Kransthow
Should your friend have his T2 BPO removed?
Yes. Not for the implied, petty "me vs him" jealousy though, but because it's fundamentally unbalanced.
How is one unbalanced when the other isn't?
Both are storys about how a person is disadvantaged to another with each potraying a situation of inequal opportunity (lottery stopped) with a unfair system (the lottery).
Yet you have different answers for the same problem.
I wonder why...
|
Kransthow
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 07:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Oh, here comes the broken analogy squad.
A better analogy would be. If your neighbor bought 100,000 stocks from a company should he lose everything when the company bankrupts, or should the government use your money to keep the company alive so this guy won't break?
It is basically teh same. People took the risk and bought bpos. If the rules change they are screwed, as MANY MANY before them were when CCP changed the games rules. The game is a dynamic enviroment with changing rules. If you decide to expend billions in something waiting for it to be profitable forever you will end disapointed, as you SHOULD.
First of all how is my analogy incorrect? I love it when people just glaze over and just say ITS WRONG without listing the specifics.
Second your own anology basically equates buying a T2 BPO to gambling, and that if T2 BPOs are nerfed then should the owners be reimbursed for their financial loss.
I don't know why your talking to me about that, I don't give two shits about reimbursment. I am arguing that there is no reason to nerf T2BPOs into oblivion.
Finally you seem to boil down to the point that THINGS HAVE BEEN NERFED SO THIS SHOULD BE NERFED which just seems a little trippy to me.
|
|
|
| |
|