|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marc Rime
305
   |
Posted - 2014.03.07 23:36:00 -
[1] - Quote
deepfried salad gilliam wrote:i have no problem with militia, but the std will break the economy for p2p trading, thats why they were removed from market
That's funny, because the only reason they've given AFAIK was that they weren't currently "functioning as intended" (https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=116404). I find it hard to believe that the problem was them being permanent (that fact hardly came as a surprise), it's far more likely that BPOs were believed to impact sales of consumable AUR gear.
Also, it makes no sense that militia would be fine, but standard level would break the economy... not to worry though, the "break the economy" argument has never made much sense anyway. |
Marc Rime
305
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 00:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Mobius Kaethis wrote:No!
BPO's are toxic to the future of the integrated play run market and should be at the very least drastically altered. I would even have no problem with my BPO' being refunded into AUR. They never should have been implemented as an unlimited item in the first place as such an item goes directly against the game's guiding principals.
What are these guiding principles of which you speak? Have CCP published them somewhere or are they just something you made up here and now to support and lend weight to your opinion? ;)
...as for whether they should ever have added permanent items in the first place or not... yeah, maybe they shouldn't have. But they did. The damage is done. Making them unavailable at this point doesn't fix anything, it just creates an additional imbalance (then again, I don't believe it has ever been about the balance, it's about consumable AUR sales). |
Marc Rime
305
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 00:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maken Tosch wrote:I never understood it either why BPOs were initially implemented. The fact that they admitted to not realizing the threat that BPOs pose to the secondary market if introduced en masse was a clear sign that CCP didn't think this through.
I would very much like to read the admission where they state that. If you have any recollection of where you read it, I'd really appreciate it if you could provide me with a link. |
Marc Rime
305
|
Posted - 2014.03.08 00:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mobius Kaethis wrote:Marc Rime wrote:
Also, it makes no sense that militia would be fine, but standard level would break the economy... not to worry though, the "break the economy" argument has never made much sense anyway.
Perhaps you don't really understand how a player run economy functions in that case. Why would a player buy items from a player run market if they could just get them for free? Why would someone manufacture those same items? How will a market function when a large number of people have no need to participate in it? And in a similar vein, how will having two classes of players (those with infinitely low risk/equal reward gear vs those who pay for everything) allow for equality across the player base? Should I, as a closed beta vet, have such a major economic advantage over a newer player who has to pay for every suit?
The player economy will be affected to some degree, but hardly to the point of being broken. Permanent items don't affect the player economy any more than do consumable AUR items - less, in fact, since AUR gear is available at any level while permanent items don't really go beyond STD. Furthermore, permanent items aren't free, they were paid for with real world money, just like AUR gear. Players who don't wish to spend real world money will buy from the ISK market.
As for equality and fairness... What you say is true, but again it's no different from AUR gear. In fact, each of your arguments against permanent items apply equally to AUR gear which I doubt they'll remove any time soon. |
|
|
| |
|