MikeNificent
Space Marshal
This seems like a very polarizing issue *throws two pennies at the computer screen*.
How will this affect people with high value accounts (say $500+)?
Well, it won't. These folks are pros (grey market types; do it to make $$), hoarders (buy $0 CCUs because they can and just want to have them; usually like to help org mates out by helping them get ships not on sale), and junkies (I like ships).
All three of these types will use the same technique they use to hoard 75 $35 LTI dragonflies in their buyback tab to hoard 500 $5 CCUs. Buy, melt, buy, melt, buy, melt, etc. Big deal. They probably already have the credit. If they don't, they can melt a ship they already have, buy the CCUs, melt those, and then rebuy the ship back. It's an extra step. Mildly inconvenient, but will not stop the practice of CCU hoarding (and and as such won't fix the 'database' issue).
Ok so it won't really affect the high value accounts, so how will it affect the low value accounts?
New backers and backers who can't/don't want to spend a bunch of money backing the game will get hit hardest (in theory, provided they actually agree to pay). Mustang is buggy. Aurora is buggy. Maybe I want to switch back and forth to figure out which (piece of hot garbage) one I want (obviously hypothetical as I own and will only own an Aurora for the greater glory of TEST). Do I have to pay $5 every time I want to switch from a Mustang to an Aurora or 85x to Avenger? If so, I'm pretty salty right now.
Hmm... So the hoarders will have to navigate a new speed bump, and the new backers will get shit on via a $5 "sorry your ship is unflyable at times" tax.
So is it a cash grab then?
Well the big spenders will abuse this system as with others and pay little if any more than they already have, the low value accounts and new backers will refuse to pay the $5 and either live with what they have or quit playing, so it doesn't appear that many folks are coughing up much new cash... Hmm...
So if it's not an effective cash grab, it won't get rid of or even slow down the grey market, and it won't stop hoarders from hoarding, what is the purpose again?
When I started typing this post, I was convinced I could have answered that question. Now I've forgotten. All I can remember is that I was for the $5 CCU minimum because *reasons* and now in exploring the issue while typing, I'm no longer for or against because I can't figure out what possible motivation CIG has for implementing this minimum in the first place. I should be upset that as a member of the 'Junkie' category, I will be inconvenienced via working my way around the $5 CCU thing, but I'm not. I guess if I have to pick a side, I'll wait to see how it is actually implemented. What I can definitively say is that while typing this post, I took a break to look at my buyback tab to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass and I... *grins sheepishly* bought back a $35 MPUV cargo anniversary 2016 that I had melted some time ago. Well played CIG. Well played.
How will this affect people with high value accounts (say $500+)?
Well, it won't. These folks are pros (grey market types; do it to make $$), hoarders (buy $0 CCUs because they can and just want to have them; usually like to help org mates out by helping them get ships not on sale), and junkies (I like ships).
All three of these types will use the same technique they use to hoard 75 $35 LTI dragonflies in their buyback tab to hoard 500 $5 CCUs. Buy, melt, buy, melt, buy, melt, etc. Big deal. They probably already have the credit. If they don't, they can melt a ship they already have, buy the CCUs, melt those, and then rebuy the ship back. It's an extra step. Mildly inconvenient, but will not stop the practice of CCU hoarding (and and as such won't fix the 'database' issue).
Ok so it won't really affect the high value accounts, so how will it affect the low value accounts?
New backers and backers who can't/don't want to spend a bunch of money backing the game will get hit hardest (in theory, provided they actually agree to pay). Mustang is buggy. Aurora is buggy. Maybe I want to switch back and forth to figure out which (piece of hot garbage) one I want (obviously hypothetical as I own and will only own an Aurora for the greater glory of TEST). Do I have to pay $5 every time I want to switch from a Mustang to an Aurora or 85x to Avenger? If so, I'm pretty salty right now.
Hmm... So the hoarders will have to navigate a new speed bump, and the new backers will get shit on via a $5 "sorry your ship is unflyable at times" tax.
So is it a cash grab then?
Well the big spenders will abuse this system as with others and pay little if any more than they already have, the low value accounts and new backers will refuse to pay the $5 and either live with what they have or quit playing, so it doesn't appear that many folks are coughing up much new cash... Hmm...
So if it's not an effective cash grab, it won't get rid of or even slow down the grey market, and it won't stop hoarders from hoarding, what is the purpose again?
When I started typing this post, I was convinced I could have answered that question. Now I've forgotten. All I can remember is that I was for the $5 CCU minimum because *reasons* and now in exploring the issue while typing, I'm no longer for or against because I can't figure out what possible motivation CIG has for implementing this minimum in the first place. I should be upset that as a member of the 'Junkie' category, I will be inconvenienced via working my way around the $5 CCU thing, but I'm not. I guess if I have to pick a side, I'll wait to see how it is actually implemented. What I can definitively say is that while typing this post, I took a break to look at my buyback tab to make sure I wasn't talking out of my ass and I... *grins sheepishly* bought back a $35 MPUV cargo anniversary 2016 that I had melted some time ago. Well played CIG. Well played.
