Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Thursday, October 10, 2013

SOMER of rage

I've mentioned a time or two that if you tell me that I'm wrong, and then you present a logical, reasoned, compelling case to show that I'm wrong, I will think about it... and then I will agree with you.  I will change my mind.  I've been accused in the EVE community in various ways -- many insulting -- of being overly changeable.  I nod politely when this accusation is thrown at me.  Particularly in the U.S. over the last decade or so it's become fashionable to be "resolute in one's convictions"... even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary position.

I've never been all that fashionable.

I've decided that I came down on the wrong side of the SOMER Blink debate, particularly as it applies to the reward of 30 Ishukone Watch Scorpions to employees of that organization.  It's not that I don't value their contribution to the community.  I absolutely do!  But CCP giving SOMER Blink this reward -- only the second player organization to receive it -- was a poor choice.  I said this in my initial post about this debate.

The problem, however, was that initial post got caught up in a side issue: whether CCP has the right to reward community leaders.  I still think they do!  But I treated who received this particular reward as the side issue.  The more I think about this and the more I read player concerns about it, the more I realize that SOMER Blink receiving this reward isn't a side issue on this matter.

It's the main issue.  It's the only issue that really matters.

CCP has posted their first response to player concerns on this matter.  Please go out and read it if you have not already.

Reading their statement in this context, I believe CCP is also caught up in side issues.  CCP Guard and the rest of the team that wrote this response did a lovely job of covering these side issues, but side issues they are.  They avoided the main issue and lots and lots of players in the thread have (rightly) called them on it.  Guard is one of my top five favorite people at CCP and watching him having to respond to the same question over and over again in the thread -- "why SOMER?!" -- is painful.

I received a few dozen comments to my blog post on the issue, and I tried to respond to every salient point that was raised.  But only two people directly EVE mailed me about this issue.  One of those EVE mails was very short.  The other, from EVE player Rob Crowley, was quite long.  But his EVE mail was so impassioned, detailed, and well-reasoned that I responded to him in kind with a lengthy response.  Now most of what he wrote, most of what I wrote back, and most of his second response is also -- quite frankly -- about side issues.  But he raised one argument that I simply can't ignore (which I've edited somewhat for clarity):
Now for the hopefully compelling argument why it is wrong:

The core element of EVE which sets it apart from other games is its sandbox nature where players can do (to a degree) whatever they want and compete with other players. Paraphrasing one of the higher-up devs recently (might have been Unifex): "The players are at the helm. They decide where the game goes." So in order to provide such a sandbox it is important that CCP does not unnecessarily meddle around with it. This means that in particular they can't mess with the inter-player competition by supporting one group of players.

Somer is run for-profit within the sandbox and therefore in direct in-game competition with all kinds of similar lotteries, gambling or betting services. CCP directly supported Somer twice by giving them massive in-game valuables to auction off and by giving them the very valuable IScorps (those were worth ~20b a piece when Somer got them, it doesn't matter how much they'll be worth in a year when CCP has given out more, because of the secrecy people didn't even know back then that there would be so many more of them). On top of that they also endorsed the service and claimed that it's legitimate on the forums.

All of this is directly supporting Somer and therefore directly hurting everyone competing with Somer. It's a distortion of competition and therefore damaging the very core of the sandbox.
And he's right.  That's a compelling argument.  I can't think of and I have not seen from CCP any argument which refutes that.  DNSBLACK, an EVE player I respect a lot, makes a very similar -- and equally compelling -- argument in an OpEd posted on EVE News 24.  Go give that a read as well.

But I can simplify the argument: it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization, regardless of why they did.  That's the main issue here.  If CCP wanted to reward SOMER Blink, they should have been rewarded outside the game in some fashion, and that reward and the reason for it should have been made immediately public to the community.  When the CSM is brought to Iceland for the Winter Summit and this topic comes up, that's what I'll be saying to CCP.  I thank CCP profusely for making it clear that the CSM will be engaged on this issue and they'll have more to say on this matter.

So consider this a partial retraction, or as is fashionable in the U.S. to say, a "walking back" of my original position.  My thanks to DNSBLACK and to Rob Crowley for their input, as well as everyone who commented on the original post.  I still think I got what I said about the side issues (in particular CCP's rights and the fact this should have been public in the first place) mostly right, but I was dead wrong in not seeing and not properly responding to the main issue.  And I do still think Xander Phoena is silly for thinking my first post was in any way influenced by a conflict of interest (sorry, Xander).

Anyone who wishes to make Jell-O analogies may do so... now.

60 comments:

  1. " it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization" is this referring to the Gold Magnate or the iScorps? because i think it would be a pity if CCP stopped providing any sponsorships for events, even if this does affect the sandbox somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have nothing but respect for someone willing to listen to a reasoned argument and and reevaluate their position in its light.

    This you have done.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Weebles wobble, but they don't fall down! Unless they get decked upside the head with a heavy digging implement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well glad you got their in the end.

    For me Somer getting the gift was a side issue, as no one in game should recieve anything like that from CCP, for profit or charity organisation.

    The other thing this did show is the CSM needs a mechanism for the removal of CSM member/s by the community if they are shown to be ill suited/uncaring. Why well because of consequences, it is a consequence of someone being on the CSM if they are voted there but their actions while there also need consequences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a method, it's called voting. Welcome to Eve.

      Delete
    2. Actually in the last election, so it would be more representative people were not able to vote for "Disband the CSM" or "None of the Above", so a lot of people did not have the ability to voice their opinions on the CSM. When you cut out peoples ability to be counted you stop it being a vote and create a farce.

      Delete
  5. "Xander Phoena is silly."

    Damn right!

    ReplyDelete
  6. If it was wrong to reward SOMER surely it was just as wrong to reward SCL. After all the Syndicate small gang players can use the money from the scorpions to finance more effective pvp - link alts, boosters etc. In fact giving a group of pvpers a big cash injection is very likely to see them win fights they wouldn't have won without those extra resources.

    My point of course is not that it was wrong to reward SCL, their contribution is fantastic. But you're drawing a general principle here Jester that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Yes it's a sandbox. But it's constantly interfered with, the nerf to Tech was a nerf to Goons, there are continual interventions that directly advantage or disadvantage groups of people.

    A true non-interventionist sandbox would be more like Second Life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would largely agree with you. I think, a better rule, would be that if CCP was going to poke their fingers into the sandbox they must:

      1) Tell the players they are doing it.
      2) Tell the players exactly what they are doing.
      3) Keep a consistent policy on what they do and why.

      Under those rules, Alliance tournament give aways are fine. As is the tech nerf.

      Delete
    2. This comment nails it. I've replied to Ripard on CZ http://c-z.me/onwalkingaway

      Delete
    3. You think we don't already rule over syndicate.
      The money is p.much irrelevant, Everyone here is still our bitch.

      Delete
  7. I didn't think the gift any sort of big deal, but as a player I am not involved in any direct competition with other corps/alliances. I suppose that if I were, I too would see the matter as a big CCP thumb on the scale.

    Huh. Hadn't thought of that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. All those points in the argument someone provided you with where already present in the original thread when you commented on it and dismissed everyone as a bunch of jealous whiners. That suggests to me that you either did not read the thread before commenting on it (bad), or that you simply didn't understand the actual problem even after reading it (even more bad).

    I find it interesting that someone has to explicitly paint out the problem for you like some pictures in a childbook in order for you to understand. Or maybe you still don't understand but don't have a choice because CCP has made a statement where they say that they were wrong and that they did a mistake? Sorry Ripard, I voted for you in the CSM election but quite frankly I was expecting more from you. Especially on a point that I think really matters (for once).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah come on! Just STHU will you?

      You would not do half as good if you were in his shoes.
      Voting for someone does not give you license to hold them to your totally subjective and quite exaggerated standards.

      Ripard put a lot of time and effort into this CSM thing and that's what your vote entitles you too ask from him.
      The fact that he can admit mistake and go public about it is an expected bonus.

      Go back to your forest, Troll.

      Delete
    2. To be fair, the point he missed *was* drown by text of a bunch of jealous whiners.

      Delete
    3. "you expected more from him"???
      Ye gods man, some of us have a life outside EvE and CSM membership pays poorly to say the least.
      The most you can hope from an elected official is that they promote your general interests and keep you informed of whats going on. I defy you to name any past CSM member that has accomplished that better than Ripard.
      Perspective man, perspective.

      Delete
  9. It is a fine trait, being able to reconsider the evidence and change one's opinion. One more reason why CSM is better off with you than without you.

    On the topic of game rewards, I dont really care. CCP is entitled to run their marketing (=rewarding people who add content) by giving players of their choice pixels of any or color.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "But I can simplify the argument: it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization, regardless of why they did. That's the main issue here. "

    You do realize Jester that sticking to this commandment, word for word, would also mean no tournament prizes of any kind? Any prize/reward that CCP put forward would have to be useless items, such as "a piece of Steve", otherwise claims of sandbox meddling could always be made.

    Why should CCP reward an already successful alliance with sandobox meddling Morachas for winning ATXI, for example?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tournament prizes that are offered for winners in a competition. The prizes are public and identified prior to the competition.

      I don't have a problem with that.

      I would have a problem if CCP decided to give my corp a Morachas for something we did in game that wasn't part of a competitive event.

      If CCP wants to reward those that 'create content' for the game, or aid the community in some fashion, then it should be a reward:

      1) that does not provide any player, corp, or alliance an in-game advantage

      2) cannot be traded, transferred, or given to another eve entity.(i.e. has no eve market value, even for collectors)

      Examples would be CCP-assigned medals, naming features (or descriptions thereof) of EVE after players, corps, alliances (like statues, monuments, ships, stations, etc)

      Delete
    2. Should not your two point rule set also apply to the AT prizes? Afterall, the sanctity of the sandbox is paramount and giving out OP unique ships, conjured up out of thin air, will affect the sandbox - even if those ships are only used in the next years AT.

      Delete
  11. And for your next trick your going to sort out the Republican and Democrat ejits?

    Nice to see someone secure enough in there beliefs that they can admit a mistake, sorry partial mistake :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah, so you "mis-spoke" when you made your position known, or you "were taken out of context". That is the typical american backtrack.

    One of my forum enemies, James Amril-Kesh actually created an excellent thread to discuss non-ISK based rewards and recognition for CCP to use to honour people whose contributions to the game are huge.

    I suggested creating a CCP or Concord medal that can be assigned to characters, only by CCP. Given how much people pay for a monacle, imagine the epeen for a medal that is indeed unobtainable at any price in-game.

    Naturally, the forum fascists locked the thread almost immediately. Let's be clear. CCP will continue to reserve the right to play favourites inside Eve.

    Lastly, how many other times has CCP handed a group huge advantages because they liked them, that we don't know about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spiny Norman says there's an awful lot of daylight between saying one "mis-spoke" or was "taken out of context", and clearly stating that one's position has been changed by a compelling argument. The former's a cop-out; the latter isn't; and this post by our host is the latter.

      Spiny Norman would also like to invite you to a meeting at Luton Airport to discuss certain matters.

      Delete
  13. Flip floping is the techincal term.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The ability to change one's mind when confronted with evidence contrary to initial claims is rare. I applaud it. It's one reason why it's so easy to keep coming back to this site.

    Make sure to hold CCP's feet to the fire. It's good to see them walking back on this issue, but they still havent addressed the core of it, as you pointed out. I would argue, and you would probably disagree, that even deeper than the "why Somer?" element is this: "how can any organization whose activities lead directly to the sales of ETCs be provided in-game advantages?" SOMER Blink's activities sell PLEX, of that there is no doubt, and it's too easy to see why CCP wants them to continue to thrive...they are probably the largest ISK sink in the game. I know people who have bought ETCs, used the Blink credit from those codes, and immediately bought out PLEX on Blink so as to maximize promo tokens. Blink has been a huge windfall for CCP, and providing even more help to them in the face of other resellers is not fair. I've spoken to at least one of those resellers, and their margins are so poor at this point they may have to stop altogether. This is bad for EVE, for 3rd-party resellers to flee en masse because of this sort of favoritism. It reduces the advertisinig and social footprint of the game, and as you have posted about before, EVE is shrinking enough as is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Therendal, there are so many points wrong with your post, but let me just ask you to clarify the following:

      1) Blink doesn't sell GTCs themselves, resellers give them a % for the referal. How does a referal for a GTC sale you might not have had otherwise hurt your business?
      2) How do you "buy out" PLEXES on Blink?
      3) How exactly is PLEX, or the fact that Somer earns loads of isk an isk sink?
      4) How does giving any organization an in-game reward hurt GTC resellers?

      Please explain.

      As for your latest position Ripard, while " it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization, regardless of why they did. " is true in some measure, I think it's too extreme a statement. I also disagree with everyone who tried to compare this to the T20 scandal, I am willing to bet that CCP Manifest had no clue how much the ship would go for on the market (which is worrisome in it's own way).

      I loved your first post on this subject, most people complaining about this are simply jealous. The only person whose position hasn't come out as jealousy to me so far has been DNSBlack.

      You have proven by the past that you're not afraid to say that you were wrong and apologize, I commend you for also having the gut to publicly change your mind.

      Delete
    2. I can't speak for Therendal, but I'll take a crack at some of these:

      1) I'm not sure I get the connection of this question to the previous statement; it doesn't seem to address something Therendal actually expressed. As there is a bit of confusion here, but I'm not sure on whose part (yours or mine), I'll just leave it alone for now.

      2) I think he is referring to the practice of taking the bonus blink credits SOMER offers for a GTC purchase, and then using those credits to buy out all tickets for a single lottery, thus ensuring an ISK payout. But I could be wrong.

      3) You're right; it's not an ISK sink; the ISK is just transferred between players, not removed from the game (unless you buy into some of the conspiracy theories that SOMER is CCP-run and is used to remove ISK, but I think that's a serious stretch).

      4) This is the one I really wanted to get at. This isn't so much about the reward (the IScorps), but about the EVE Vegas lottery prizes. Those prizes drove an enormous amount of traffic to SOMER's site. At least some of that traffic likely purchased GTCs through SOMER's referral mechanism, and thereby through their linked GTC seller. These are purchases which could potentially have gone to any other GTC seller, if SOMER had not had the unique prizes to offer that could not be obtained from anyone else. Thus, CCP directed customers to SOMER Blink (and by extension, their partnered GTC seller), and away from other sites competing with SOMER in both the in-game gambling and GTC-sale markets.

      Delete
  15. bingo, thats the only issue that is worth discussing....CCP endorsement.....not the shiney toys.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Geez,

    Stepping back from a hard position, listening to well reasoned and articulate arguments, recognizing a potential error and adjusting opinion to suite . . . I'm sorry to say, Jester, you'll never be a SUCCESSFUL politician.

    However, you would be a politician that all politicians should aspire to be. Sadly, our short-sighted, us-first, for profit, political world does not reward this kind of politician.

    More's the pity.

    Thanks again for staying on the high road.

    ReplyDelete
  17. maybe the new launchers will let me use nerfed heavy missiles to nail Jell-O to the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The problem with his argument is it incorrectly identifies what CCP’s role is in the sandbox. Rob’s statement that “… in order to provide such a sandbox it is important that CCP does not unnecessarily meddle around with it” is not really accurate. The fact of the matter is that it is CCPs prime role to meddle in the sandbox and to constantly make changes to the system in order to destabilize it. CCP is like the ancient gods of Greece: from time to time they come down and crush peoples daily lives and change the nature of their world in order to force them to adapt and strive to be better. Forcing change and subsequently adaptation is important because it gives the player base challenges to overcome and keeps us interested in the game. CCP’s intervention can take many forms, some very public (like a new patch two times a year) or very private (favoring certain groups and giving them in-game benefits). They need to keep destabilizing the game, however, to ensure that it remains interesting for the player base.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your argument is correct but not entirely:
      Yes, CCP needs to shake things up so that we are motivated to adapt. A long status quo is not good for the game, people will get bored and leave.
      However, any changes to the game need to be made publicly so that everyone is aware of them and has a way to adapt. Doing it privately as you put it creates mistrust and leads to conspiracy theories. Mistrust does not make the game interesting, it makes it untrustworthy and not worth playing.

      Delete
    2. I don't think our opinions about CCP's role actually differ much. I deliberately included the word "unnecessarily" in my argument for exactly that reason. I absolutely agree that it is necessary for CCP to stir things up a bit when certain aspects of the game get boring. However, when it is necessary to do so it should always happen in a fair manner by general balancing changes, not by supporting one particular group of players picked by CCP. E.g. it is ok to rebalance moons to incentivize conflict, it's not ok to hand one alliance in-game wealth to fund a war, even if the result (more wars) might be the same.

      I like the sports analogy: It's the difference between referees changing some rules in between seasons to make the game more exciting and referees supporting one particular team.

      NB: Supporting Somer was in no way necessary, the game was doing just fine without it. Even Somer was doing fine without it, though that doesn't really matter.

      Delete
  19. I think it's referred to as a "flip flop"

    Anyhow, somewhat related, but how much of a hit do you think SOMER's business is going to take from this whole fiasco?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization, regardless of why they did."

    So glad to hear you say this. Good man! I feel more confident that CCP will hear the message if yourself and others on the CSM are representing this view.

    ReplyDelete
  21. CCP has the right to give out in-game items and in many cases they are well earned and the receiver is honored. But there is a huge difference between giving out stuff to player run charity organization and a profit driven one.

    If the staff of SCL (or any other Tournament) get this reward thats fine because they do it for fun and provide content. If the Eve University gets an in-game bonus, thats fine too as long as other new player supporting communities get in this favor too.

    Giving in-game Items to any service created for profit is bad. SOMER is just the scapegoat that's catching all the flak of this discussion. Yes this lotteries, gambling sites and bet houses do enrich the game. But they don't do it out of the kindness of their heart but for ISK profit. And in that case CCP should stick to out of game rewards or plex. Latter seems a bit strange as the usual for profit service is earning much more than a plex will give.

    The public thank-you with the community spotlight is enough publicity for profit driven organizations.

    Using the SOMER Blink mechanics to push out other in-game items is a hole other topic. I don't think CCP has that much control over the blink mechanics to know who safe and fair it is. So, to hand out cool stuff to players, ccp should stick to there own methods.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For me, a significant issue is this: rewards should be going to those whose operations constitute some manner of sacrifice, hardship, or labor of love. SOMER Blink employees are compensated very well indeed by Blink for it.

    Also, while not particular to the iScorp, I really wish that the entire backlog of vanity items would be introduced in some way-- even if it's just more LP store reward stuffs, or reskinned Navy-class ships available from respective LP stores (for instance, the Ishukone Watch store gives iScorps-- which are comparable to the Scorpion Navy Issue in all regards).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Good job on taking the time to think this through, see the underlying issue and respond. Similar to the ship re-balancing, CCP's responsibility is to be impartial and not provide an unfair advantage to any group, otherwise the sandbox will be broken. I don't think they thought this through and how this would extend to out-of-game groups but once again, the community was able to remind them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yay! Completely outside this specific issue, I find the "resolute in one's convictions" culture to be extremely damaging. I'm happy to see people stand up to it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. On a side note: One funny element of that whole discussion is, that so many claim that SomerBLINK doesn't do anything for EVE. You know, if they didn't deliver any service to EVE players, where comes the 1.2 quadrillion turn-around from?

    And no, it's not about in-game content. Podcasts don't deliver in-game content either. And If it was only about gambling, not EVE, there are better gambling sites.

    It reminds me of other things which "nobody does" (admit to) but make a fortune. In Germany that saying goes for the "Bild" tabloid newspaper, which has 10 times the reach of other newspapers here, but almost nobody admits reading it. Or like porn, or whatever actions people are embarrassed by in your country.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ripard,

    "But I can simplify the argument: it was wrong for CCP to provide an in-game advantage to one player organization over another player organization, regardless of why they did."

    Does this include moon rebalancing? Does this include hi-sec PI changes? Does this include every nerf or enhancement CCP has made over the course of the past decade? If you think all those things don't provide an in-game advantage to some at the expense of others, I think you need to think again. ANY change or reward CCP gives out will be more advantageous to some and slight others. But as I said somewhere else, Eve Online is not a sandbox. It is a for profit company first. That takes precedent over any other consideration. Real life is always greater than in-game concerns. That applies to everyone commenting on your blog. It ALSO applies to CCP the company and every single employee they have. What if CCP Guard lost his job? What if CCP chose to ignore an excellent marketing opportunity because it showed favoritism and couldn't afford the position any more? What happens to the sandbox then? What if CCP had to again lay off a third of their workforce? No my fellow blogger, the main issue here is not SOMERblink and the nature of a sandbox. It is whether or not CCP survives in the gaming industry. That is the first consideration in anything they do. Not whether we will agree with it or feel butt hurt over it. With all respect, I think everyone needs to pull their heads out of the sandbox and look around at what's going on in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If you feel this way about the Somer issue Jester, then what about tournament prizes?

    There's no way you can tell me that giving away trillions of isk worth of prizes at these events doesnt affect the sandbox and give the winners an unfair in game advantage over everyone else.

    They are won outside of the sandbox in almost every way, and yet the have a tremendous impact in game.

    Maybe my memory is a bit hazy and I was certainly not "in the know", but I'm pretty sure I remember hearing at the time that several of BoB's first titans were basically funded by selling AT prize ships. This is back when there were less than 10 in game, with AOE remote doomsdays, and all that fun stuff.

    How many RSF fleets were annihilated by titans basically funded by CCP prize giveaways?

    How many years of 100% SRP could a Rote AT win fund?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AT tournament is open to all alliances and the entry rules are clear to all. The tournament is broadcast to the public and the winning team is not selected by CCP, they fight for the prizes.

      In this specific instance, it is not clear how CCP selected Somer and they certainly did not do it publicly (apparently quite the opposite). They also supported a group that can (I'm not saying they are) significantly influence the meta-game by using both their prizes and their profits from the gambling site.

      Delete
    2. This just in Rote is now BoB

      Delete
    3. Who cares if its open to all?

      If CCP made an online poker tournament open to all EVE subscribers and set the pot at 10 trillion in game isk, is that ok as well?

      I love the AT. I started playing EVE as a result of watching ATII on EVE TV on a lark. It is, however, almost completely outside of the EVE sandbox. Set in Jove space, it is essentially outside of new eden. The only link to the actual game is that in game ships must be used and risked.

      Delete
  28. Jesus this shit is so dumb......first off there are 3 fucking ppl in game that would buy that ship for 20b isk and i even doubt most of them would pay that. 2nd most of the fucking ppl bitching have never made that much isk or have no idea what they are talking about. CCP gave them a hull not 20b isk. How many have sold for 20b? any of u bother to check that??? fucking gelvon is all like its causing massive inflation lmfao gelv this isnt wow u cant just go npc the shit for 20b someone has to actually buy it. guess what that means it created no isk......as for somer u think they are gonna take a hit business wise lol......any PR is good PR out here in the real world and most of the time it works that way in eve too. if they were smart they would lotto off the iscorps since that would give them max profit cuz nobody is gonna buy one for 20b lol. im sorry tho i dont really see the in game advantage this give to a organization that has givin away over a quadrillion in prizes. in gelvons mind thats pry all created isk too causing inflation.....fuck i think we picked up too many wow players that need their hands held. as for the its anti sand box ppl.......HTFU u come to the sand box and some other kid has a cool paint job on one of his toys....QQ....like anyone is gonna be able to undock in one of these things lol. the community is wasting too much time and energy on this topic u all being trolled by the goons imo, oh and lol to the OMG T20 ppl....how many of u actually played during T20? im willing to bet most of you dont even know what the hell really happened. you know what if we discovered the somer thing cuz someone was trying to cut the power to their house to take a titan off line it might be a story, but oh yeah these are USELESS iSCORPS not t2 BPO so STFU already its not even close u think an iscorp is worth 20b what the fuck do u think a t2 BPO is worth and this is when u could actually get them in game mind u. its worth way more then 20b and its price dont go down cuz ccp isnt giving them out like candy. this community is getting pretty fuckin sad man.....u get a 2nd fluff ass expansion, the best change is warp speeds, and lol you are all bitching about a fucking ccp giveaway to ppl that are trying to improve the community, if your competition to somer is so big and good buy some fucking ads so ppl know who u are and maybe u can get some iscorps. cuz I see Somer sponsering just about every ingame activity. i have rarely seen an event thats not getting somer isk.......sorry i just dont see the rage here....and if u dont think the SCL guys should get something u need to go fuck yourself and eventuate what u do for the community instead of just bitching when someone gets a toy u didnt get. personally i agree with rixx javixx it seems that someone has an agenda here, sadly eve has become so full of sheep that only the pirates see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post got approval?!?

      Someone needs a nap!

      Delete
    2. If one iScorp is worth 20B on the market, how much will Somer Blink make out of a raffle for one?

      As for improving the community: this is a common thread with real world gambling companies: they pump lots of money into the community to show that they are "community minded" all the while finding new ways to get people addicted to gambling.

      All the money being poured into the community by gambling companies came out of the pockets of gamblers. They are not philanthropic organisations.

      What sort of problems are Cognitive Development causing for real people by finding new ways to gamble in-game? How many people buy PLEX through Somer specifically to fund their in-game gambling habit?

      Delete
  29. Becoming quite the Politician are you not? Give CCP a warm fuzzy (They have the right to do it) and the incensed voters a hug (They shouldn't have done it). You used "walking back" as a description of changing your mind. I believe better descriptions would be flip-flop, wishy-washy, and bowing to pressure. I was hoping you would be a supporter of the Hi-Sec casual, solo, low-intensity player, but I'm afraid your just a mannequin nodding in whichever way the wind blows. See you at Eve Vegas.

    ReplyDelete
  30. People who "stick to their guns" regardless of evidence or argument to the contrary are the core of all problems in politics, and many problems elsewhere. Major kudos to you for being willing to re-examine your assumptions and analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think it's important to make a distinction between tounament prizes and give-aways. Tournament prizes, people WORKED for. Last year's AT prizes, YOU could've had, if you'd just worked harder, or smarter, at it.

    Also, it was known WAYY before, that the winners of the last AT would recieve unique ships.

    In my humble opinion, tournament prize ships, whether they are last year's or next year's prizes, or the original Gold Magnate, have FECK ALL to do with the issue.

    Tournament ships are WON. The issue is with GIVEAWAY ships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incorrect. Community awards by CCP are given in recognition of HARD WORK by the players involved, so your arbitrary distinction is unfounded.

      Delete
  32. kudos to the man who can hold his hands up when he's wrong

    imho if the event outcome revolves around player skill i.e pvp then the prize could be a new very shinny ship however the prize allocation must be made by ccp not the event organiser, of course ccp will now have to carefully choose what they endorse.

    Anything else more focused on rnd and significantly less skill ie bingo lotto etc they should award cosmetic items still going to be worth something but not billions and slightly less of a game changer however you may become a bullet magnet.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Perhaps the way to give ingame items as a reward for these kinds of services is to make the rewards

    A. Worse than standard ships in terms of gameplay.
    B. Cosmetic uniqueness
    C. Can not be sold or traded.

    This removes ANY "value" to the reward outside of ownership. So make it so that the Ishkone Scorpions are account locked and I'd be happy. The only people who I see hating this would be collectors... but perhaps it would be a way for convincing collectors to work on promoting EVE/CCP in positive ways such that they also earn these limited, but "worthless" ships.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I look forward to your Alliance mates handing back their IScorps.

    ReplyDelete
  35. It is not a crime for Jester's first published opinion to have been a little CCP-centric; he works with devs on a daily basis. I'm glad that he could reevaluate, whether or not this was triggered by forum rage.

    And I don't think either of the conclusions was wrong (or right). Complex issues/problems may have no correct answers/solutions. Hasn't every one of us changed an opinion/approach after a second look at a situation?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.