Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 74
  1. #61
    Mature
    Joined
    Jul 30 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    39
    In my opinion, these are the priorities.

    1. Platform Stability (Platform is still buggy and client crashes are still occurring)
    2. Platform Expansion (to support the 100,000 to 1,000,000 Concurrent Users)
    3. Content Expansion/Completion (to attract new paying customers. Let's finish the Projects that have already been promised)
    4. Voting Booths (to support EU Government Elections or even if we choose to want to have one.)
    5. New Event System (per Swarm's suggestion)


    The proposed TP Fee/Jobs proposal should be shelved till these items are complete and then the situation can be re-examined to see if it is still needed. As you all know, I am against creating jobs in the fashion this proposal intends. I think it is short sighted an fails to see the long term effects it will have on the game.

  2. Sponsored Links
  3. #62
    Provider OZtwo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 05 2012
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by Sionkiewicz View Post
    In my opinion, these are the priorities.

    1. Platform Stability (Platform is still buggy and client crashes are still occurring)
    2. Platform Expansion (to support the 100,000 to 1,000,000 Concurrent Users)
    3. Content Expansion/Completion (to attract new paying customers. Let's finish the Projects that have already been promised)
    4. Voting Booths (to support EU Government Elections or even if we choose to want to have one.)
    5. New Event System (per Swarm's suggestion)


    The proposed TP Fee/Jobs proposal should be shelved till these items are complete and then the situation can be re-examined to see if it is still needed. As you all know, I am against creating jobs in the fashion this proposal intends. I think it is short sighted an fails to see the long term effects it will have on the game.
    ND slow down with your greed here. If you would back up these ideas we could get your dream to come true and have more players with jobs. No need to kill the game.

  4. #63
    Young
    Joined
    Nov 02 2010
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by NEVERDIE View Post
    Doing some testing on the teleportation system that has not changed much in 15 years, my team of engineers discovered that a minor Adjustment to the TP power usage per teleport resulted in strange desirable side effects that appear to be non harmful and last for quite a few minutes, since the TPs require extra juice to bestow these temporary buffs, the tp fees would be needed to offset the cost .. we wil definately need to do more R&D to see if we can reproduce these effects on a mass scale...
    Ohh cool 10% bonus on my sweat gathering skill..... this is plain sad Neverdie.... We don't need buffs right after using a teleporter. And if we would, you would decrease the value of other buffs like provided by pets, rings, scopes, nano/neuro enhancers, pills and stables.....

    Maybe you should go back to actually playing the game instead of living in your own virtual reality.
    Last edited by harmony; 05-20-2016 at 06:01.

  5. #64
    Young Andy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 02 2012
    Location
    Saint-Petersburg, Russia
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by KikkiJikki View Post
    As an owner of a TP3 chip I'll be looking at buying cheap apartments at convenient locations to leverage the chip's "tp to home" ability. It will all depend on the relative costs of tp chips compared to monetised tps.
    'Teleport to home' functon consumed 3x of normal ME consumption each jump, so this is not best alternative (~2 PED/use)

  6. #65
    Old Fifth's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 25 2012
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by harmony View Post
    Ohh cool 10% bonus on my sweat gathering skill..... this is plain sad Neverdie.... We don't need buffs right after using a teleporter. And if we would, you would decrease the value of other buffs like provided by pets, rings, scopes, nano/neuro enhancers, pills and stables...
    Agreed, it would decrease the value of already existing buff sources.

    On the bright side, it seems the basic principles of economy are finally understood.
    You can't sell something to one person (conscription job with guaranteed income) and take money from another person (giving him absolutely nothing).
    Have to give something to the same person who gives you money - otherwise he doesn't give any money, turns around and walks away. Something u want to avoid...

  7. #66
    Guardian SpikeBlack's Avatar
    Joined
    May 13 2011
    Posts
    226
    Not everyone needs a buff unless you can tailor it to the person involved - if it's only hunting or mining buff then it's not much use to a crafter or trader.

    For me this whole concept is running before it can even crawl. If anyone provides jobs in EU it should be the players exclusively - just provide the framework and we'll do the rest.

  8. #67
    Mature
    Joined
    Jul 30 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    'Teleport to home' functon consumed 3x of normal ME consumption each jump, so this is not best alternative (~2 PED/use)
    I guess it matters on how you term "Best Alternative"

    You can choose between using a system that puts ped into MA's pockets and which does nothing to bring it back into the game OR one that requires resources from two professions to use (Mining and Sweating).

  9. #68
    Provider
    Joined
    Nov 08 2010
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy View Post
    'Teleport to home' functon consumed 3x of normal ME consumption each jump, so this is not best alternative (~2 PED/use)
    Some revive points have no TP so I'll need to use the chip (or a vehicle). Which I guess still makes it a little more expensive than chip porting to the nearest tp and then to my final destination.

  10. #69
    Young Andy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 02 2012
    Location
    Saint-Petersburg, Russia
    Posts
    21
    I'm already said, that we do not need this expensive system. This system just will kill the game.
    But if there will be choice, I do not plan to feed these 'job or TP deed holders', I will use TP chips and vehicles (using TP chip I can gain the skills, which will rise up in price significantly!). This is obvious for me.

  11. #70
    Hatchling
    Joined
    May 27 2016
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by NEVERDIE View Post
    ...
    This thread is for the discussion of the VR Public Transport IPO.
    I think that this problem is a few problems combined into one that will ultimately result in its failure in its current form, though it can be a great concept if reworked to represent the flow of things in NEW ways instead of penalizing the extant ways.

    The first and foremost is that business prospers through encouraging people to partake in things that benefit the company. Charging us for this vehicle when the vehicle costs the company barely anything is merely attempting to monetize the wrong thing. The mistake is made in the realm of EU itself, but the you base this entire system to broaden it out to all of VR, while the core concept is thus flawed.
    You want the vehicle to be free in order for people who are bored to be inspired to try the new content that has arrived that they can go to and see, because the money is spent inside of the venue. There is a reason why stadiums rent out bus services and other amenities to get people to the venue at their expense, and do not charge the fans to use them.
    In order for transportation to bear a cost and for that cost to be beneficial, thus something that people want to invest in, the fee needs to provide funding to directly solve an existing problem that the community requires solved while lowering their cost, or it needs to provide something that the community requires. This instead inhibits ped flow on the entire economy, in order to provide income to a small minority of players. This increases the cost of the masses to reduce the cost of the few, which is not a healthy system. The fact that Mindark then tries to further pocket money from this at such a high degree means they're trying to grab cash at too many places for this idea you proposed to work.



    With the above mentioned, I feel the best way to approach this is to rework the idea and re-release it. I feel strongly that interconnecting trade between different games is definitely something where investment can lead to prosperity, but unfortunately you need to look at it from a direction that:
    1) Incentivizes the players themselves to take part in the other content available that they can interact with. If you wish to have premium content, you will have to evolve this after the platform is already functioning by introduction of new content, and the community will vote with their dollar.
    2) Provides a net positive benefit to ALL players experiences without penalizing some to provide for others. It cannot raise further the already exorbitant cost to play for this game that hopefully is being brought into check. I have confidence in this, but I will not share my sources, but this is based in fact and current evidence.
    3) Seeks to advertise not just EU, but all content available to be moved to.

    Finally, the ped for the IPO should be focused on instead of penalizing extant systems, the investors paying the PED to mindark through investment to pay for their costs to develop new systems that benefit our community, and allow us to do things better cheaper.
    An example of one such would be if a shop IPO released where Mindark took ped for deeds on a redo of the shop system. The community could pay peds to compensate the time to introduce a healthy shop system for us. I propose the basic concept as such:
    0) People who have deeds will be able to reverse auction bid like the land deeds on new shops they open in all areas including space.
    1) 25% of all fees paid from shop owners are paid to the IPO investors. Mindark keeps 75% to further development
    2) ALL shops get a bonus over auction: They pay the auction fee once, but since they invested in the platform initially by buying a shop, they have infinite duration for their listings and can change their prices without paying again...there is one 'constraint' which incentivizes transportation: the item cannot be BOUGHT through the auction. The person can see the item, the price, and the location+coords, and must physically transport themselves there to buy the item at that price. This is to balance out the reduced price that the people pay via auction.

    After establishing this and using it to feel out the waters, I feel you could work on an inter-platform instead of intra-platform trade and commerce IPO that would draw positive appeal.

 

 
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •