Thank you for your interest in my campaign to be part of CSM 6. It is my intention to work diligently, effectively, and tirelessly to bring the concerns of the player base to the CSM, to CCP, and back to the players.
The following is a user submitted request for my stand on a topic important to them. I have given thought to the topic and formulated my opinion, but it’s just that; my opinion. Nothing more. There is no guarantee the opinion expressed herein will ever see the light of day.
My platform isn’t one of issues, but rather one of integrity, tenacity, and the willingness to hold the CSM and CCP accountable to the players that support everything we do. I will not push my own agenda, unless it coincides with what the majority of the player base wants for a given topic.
Never start a fight you can win. #RocTheVote
QUESTION: As a player who makes the majority of their income from limited edition T2 BPOs, I’m curious to know your views on them. Should they be changed? If so, how?
There are some that view limited edition T2 BPOs as “CCP Loyalty Points”, namely in the sense that if you haven’t been around the game long enough, chances are you don’t have access to limited edition T2 BPOs.
I believe in a company rewarding customer loyalty. In real life, nothing bothers me more than when a service I subscribe to offers very enticing deals to new customers only, completing neglecting the fact that I’m an existing and loyal customer.
In a game like EVE Online, the question for me is “Should this loyalty be rewarded giving long time player certain advantages?” As I have mentioned in my views on Microtransactions, the answer is no.
If CCP wanted to reward my five years of play by offering me limited edition clothing or room decorations in Incarna, items not available to younger players, so be it. I’d even be willing to go so far as to say that perhaps in the case of real life loyalty, maybe small advantages are ok (not being hypocritical, just being open minded), like a module with special bonuses, linked to my ship, not tradeable, not sellable. I don’t know, and that’s another discussion.
So do I think limited edition T2 BPOs should be removed? No. Do I think they should be changed? Yes.
I think sweeping changes can be dangerous. Removing limited edition T2 BPOs completely and suddenly accomplishes nothing but alienating and frustrating your long time player base. We all become accustomed to how things are, and are more apt to accept incremental changes than grand ones.
To that end, I think limited edition T2 BPOs should be converted to high run BPCs. The icon would remain the same. The functionality would remain the same. The only difference would be that eventually the money printing machine that is limited edition T2 BPOs will run out.
An example would be to give high run BPCs an initial max run value of 100. Each of these BPCs would have a diminished max run value of 50. Each of those children would have a dimished max run value of 25. Each of those children would have a diminished max run value of 10 until they are in line with regular BPCs.
These are arbitrary numbers for illustrative purposes.
What we can see clearly is this: limited edition T2 BPOs would not be limitless, and therefore existing limited edition T2 BPO holders would need to carefully consider their pricing structure. The more rare high run BPCs become, the higher market prices will go for rare ship types. At the same time, limited edition T2 BPO holders are not unexpectedly cut off from their current means of income, but rather have the opportunity to adjust their business strategies to accommodate this change over time.
I also believe that if limited edition T2 BPOs are converted to high run BPCs which will eventually become no more valuable than regular BPCs, there needs to be seeding of fresh high run BPCs. Is this accomplished by extending my Factional Warfare dynamic landscape idea to all areas of space, where only Tier 5 officers have a random chance of dropping a high run BPC? Maybe. Will invention offer a small chance of creating a high run BPC? Perhaps. I’m sure there are many great ideas for how to accomplish this.
With any purposed change, there is always the need for game balance, requiring any idea to be examined from multiple angles, to determine what the trickle down impact would be across game play as a whole. How can it be abused? Does the benefit outweigh negative impact? Is it worth the time and resources, or are there more important and pressing issues to deal with?
Are high end BPCs the right solution to address the issue? They may be a good starting point, or they may not be. My point on every campaign issue is to offer an additional venue for discussion, even though there are many threads on the subjects already.
By exposing the issues on my blog, it is an opportunity for some who may not be aware of the issues to form their own opinion, do their own research. For others it is an opportunity to specifically see my point of view on a given issue and engage in intelligent debate as to why they agree, disagree, or wish to improve upon my opinion.
The CSM is not a group of amateur game developers. I qualify every one of these campaign posts stating they are merely opinions and conjecture, and that none of my ideas may ever see the light of day. To be blunt, some of my ideas may never even make to the CSM should I be elected, or if they do make it that far, the CSM as a whole may engage in debate and demonstrate why certain ideas are not the best solution for a given issue.
Ultimately, I just want players to know that I am willing to hear the issues, take input on the issues, give my opinions on the issues, communicate the issues, see how far they go, and return to the player base with valid communication and information regarding the issues that are important to them as a whole.
Truth is, as has been made evident, I don’t know much about this particular process and taking shots in the dark. In such a situation on the CSM, I would defer to those with more knowledge on the given subject, questioning where I thought appropriate.