If the PP system fails.. Then what?

I don't see the connection between Arkadia partnering up with organisations like Skullcandy, Dell, glassess people and external marketing. Partnering with such organisations is more internal marketing to entice players for goodies.

Basically how is any in game item/freebie going to market the game externally? it's not unless they actually do some kind of external marketing linked to it.

Did I word that badly? Would you be more comfortable with "...marketing strongly to Asia Pacific region as well as partnering up with..." ?
 
Maybe MA should change the profit sharing agreement. Split 60 % to MA and 40 % to the PP, but instead offer to pay half of all the marketing cost for the planet, or something else to force the PP to be a bit more active in the marketing.

and what exactly would be the point of Planet Partners then? MA could simply have set up a few studios with remit to direct new art/story. and from here, that would probably have been a much better strategy.

for me the problem is first that MA doesnt have it own house in order to enable it to support thrid parties. the second is that they've encouraged new planets to create new game features from the beginning, which has then been promised, promoted and when not delivered, disappointed. i believe they should have limited new planets to story and art for the first 12 months, so that the PP could ease themselves into it, then procede to a structured rolling implementation of new features. it should also be *more* restrictive to travel between planets. they have relied on attracting the existing base, rather than new markets which is the point of partners. like everything about this game, its a great idea that MA just havent properly thought through or delivered. high on potential, low on practical delivery.
 
...marketing strongly to Asia Pacific region
To me those are just empty words to make us feel better. Firstly marketing there is little evidence of them doing anything let alone the marketing being strong. They have done a few things no doubt but in terms of anything meaningful and successful I think not. So they can claim on it being strong as much as they want but the reality is the complete opposite.

All the evidence shows their marketing has been strong on existing player base e.g. storyline episodes revealed to us before the planet went live, partnering with external organisations to award prizes to existing player base, radio interviews for existing playerbase etc.

for me the problem is first that MA doesnt have it own house in order to enable it to support thrid parties. the second is that they've encouraged new planets to create new game features from the beginning, which has then been promised, promoted and when not delivered, disappointed. i believe they should have limited new planets to story and art for the first 12 months, so that the PP could ease themselves into it, then procede to a structured rolling implementation of new features. it should also be *more* restrictive to travel between planets. they have relied on attracting the existing base, rather than new markets which is the point of partners. like everything about this game, its a great idea that MA just havent properly thought through or delivered. high on potential, low on practical delivery.


Would agree with you there. Timing of bringing in planet partners could have been better. I think they relied too much on planet partners and hoping they would do some serious marketing. Which did not happen.

Your also right about restricting new features. With hindsight would have been better to limit PP's to story and art etc and no new features until 2-3 years later.
 
To me those are just empty words to make us feel better. Firstly marketing there is little evidence of them doing anything let alone the marketing being strong. They have done a few things no doubt but in terms of anything meaningful and successful I think not. So they can claim on it being strong as much as they want but the reality is the complete opposite.

Actually have to disagree with you there, George.
Kikki is right: Arkadia _is_ bringing in quite a lot of new players and I know they have run many marketing and ad campaigns. So I think you might be a bit off base on this one.
 
Actually have to disagree with you there, George.
Kikki is right: Arkadia _is_ bringing in quite a lot of new players and I know they have run many marketing and ad campaigns. So I think you might be a bit off base on this one.

Yes, Arkadia at are at least trying and are have some success in bringing in new players. The big disappontment is Cyrene. Sometimes I which we could move all of the Arkadia players to Cyrene, because Cyrene is a much more interesting planet in my opinion.
 
Actually have to disagree with you there, George.
Kikki is right: Arkadia _is_ bringing in quite a lot of new players and I know they have run many marketing and ad campaigns. So I think you might be a bit off base on this one.

If that's correct that's good. Thinking about it now David Dobson hasn't done an interview with a vu coming up so perhaps your right and he has changed focus to external marketing. I wouldn't really know because I'm quite happy not to visit arkadia or have any dealings with them.

I was going by their previous record which has clearly been focused on internal marketing.

The big disappontment is Cyrene. Sometimes I which we could move all of the Arkadia players to Cyrene, because Cyrene is a much more interesting planet in my opinion.

I get the impression they are waiting to launch before doing their marketing. Don't really know what happened with them.

They seemed to have big plans for marketing so looked quite promising.
 
Last edited:
The best solution for the problem, make the game cheaper to play. If MA made the average return better, lower the cost to allow us to play more hours for the same money, more players would stay longer and in the end help the planets.

which is why i am completely baffled that MA recently gave up on balancing the average return better to please the crying foma gamblers who didnt find the new system exciting enough.
how short-sighted could MA be when they gave up on rectifying the nr1 complaint of gamers to please a few loud voices?
 
You are a little mis-informed. So firstly, Arkadia is marketing strongly to Asia Pacific region including partnering up with sponsers such as Skullcandy, Dell, and the glasses people. Secondly, they are getting a lot of new players in. Whether or not these new players are being retained for a reasonable period of time is an open question though. Finally, the issue of crafted weapons in loot is likely to be dealt with in the next release.

only a little then surely? :)
i know arkadia has done some marketing but i think my main point was correct? arkadia to me seems to be relying heavily on attracting existing players from calypso, or is that new soulbound PK/bot armour they are going to release soon, with quite high stats, really targeted at the people recruited by arkadia who have skilled up enough to have a use for it?
the crafted armour/weapons in TT/loot was just one example of the lack of experience and/or logical thinking that has lead to this PP not having the success it could and should have, if it is being corrected now that is great, but why was it so in the first place, and why wasnt it corrected much earlier?
arkadia partnering with other companies is a good move, and i havent said that everything this PP has done is a failure or badly thought out, but they are also not immune from criticism, as some wish to portray them as the "angels" among the PP's.
 
which is why i am completely baffled that MA recently gave up on balancing the average return better to please the crying foma gamblers who didnt find the new system exciting enough.
how short-sighted could MA be when they gave up on rectifying the nr1 complaint of gamers to please a few loud voices?

I think it's because those "better average" guys don't have the ability to look at it in a bigger picture. Better average won't be any good long therm for anyone.
 
I agree with minim, a better average loot will ultimately 'decay' the playerbase rather than increase it.

The maths of the game are clear, they follow the entropic principle and the house always wins.
An indiviual player can win but only in two ways:
a) Hit a big HoF
b) Sell at a high enough markup

If you increase average loot, and we assume MA still take the same cut, then we must by definition reduce the possibility of a), there are many players who have stayed around a long time purely because of hitting that one big loot.

I also believe that more average loot would inevitable hurt markup.
Markup depends ultimately on Player A being willing to pay Player B for the privilege of owning/using his item (ie has no direct relationship with MA). Why would I pay you 150 PED for 100 PED item if I know we are both likely to get the same loot regardless of gear? Fact is, I wouldn't.

As someone who has recently returned after a long break, I am feeling that an increased level of 'fairness' in the game in in danger of killing it off completely. You need big HoFs, you need lucky bastards who own crazy gear that us mere mortals can only dream of having, as in real life you need to feed peoples desire to compete and progress and reap the greater rewards.

Better average loot does none of those things, its EU Socialism in disguise, and its as bankrupt an idea in here as everywhere else.
 
I think it's because those "better average" guys don't have the ability to look at it in a bigger picture. Better average won't be any good long therm for anyone.

i could do with enlightening, as could all the people that quit because they did not have the peds to weather the ups and downs the way people like i can, and i presume you can.
it was the main complaint on the forum, and its what one sees if one searches the internet for references to this game, if people want mass market appeal then surely its the mass market which has to find the game affordable?

I agree with minim, a better average loot will ultimately 'decay' the playerbase rather than increase it.

The maths of the game are clear, they follow the entropic principle and the house always wins.
An indiviual player can win but only in two ways:
a) Hit a big HoF
b) Sell at a high enough markup

If you increase average loot, and we assume MA still take the same cut, then we must by definition reduce the possibility of a), there are many players who have stayed around a long time purely because of hitting that one big loot.

I also believe that more average loot would inevitable hurt markup.
Markup depends ultimately on Player A being willing to pay Player B for the privilege of owning/using his item (ie has no direct relationship with MA). Why would I pay you 150 PED for 100 PED item if I know we are both likely to get the same loot regardless of gear? Fact is, I wouldn't.

As someone who has recently returned after a long break, I am feeling that an increased level of 'fairness' in the game in in danger of killing it off completely. You need big HoFs, you need lucky bastards who own crazy gear that us mere mortals can only dream of having, as in real life you need to feed peoples desire to compete and progress and reap the greater rewards.

Better average loot does none of those things, its EU Socialism in disguise, and its as bankrupt an idea in here as everywhere else.

there where still big hofs under the more balanced loot system too, just not lots of 1K plus loots every day, of course there has to be something to play for and it is true average markup might suffer a bit (if there is any left to suffer that is) but in the end those ubers you speak of need players beneath them or else what is the point of being uber? basing the game solely on the wishes of a few higher end players will get you nowhere either, it only takes a few to quit to cause serious damage to the system.
so i agree with you that one needs lucky bastards (like me) who own crazy gear (not like me) for us mere mortals to dream of, but there has to be some balance where the game grows and new players wish to stay to grow into the ubers of the future.
i dont see what you mean with your comment about socialism either, the system is capitalist to the core, but that does not mean that a more balanced system is not healthier, and without wanting to stray into RL discussions too much, just look at the real world for your example of what unchecked vampire capitalism does, and has done to the economy of this game for that matter, so be careful what you wish for because the worlds economy looks pretty bankrupt as it is?
to put it simply, it has nothing to do with socialism or with the chance to hof big sometimes, the fact is that your regular gamer is not prepared to spend limitless amounts if they constantly get 70% back, this is something they have been loud and clear about, and if MA, and you, want this game to grow then something has to give, and that something is this average return.
 
i could do with enlightening, as could all the people that quit because they did not have the peds to weather the ups and downs the way people like i can, and i presume you can.
it was the main complaint on the forum, and its what one sees if one searches the internet for references to this game, if people want mass market appeal then surely its the mass market which has to find the game affordable?

The problem is that the ones complaining hunt mobs that are bigger then their pockets IMO. If you hunt a smaller mob you will get a more steady return over a smaller amount of ped and this is ingame already. On the big mobs that have big loot swings you need a lot more ped to get the same average and you can hit very long "bad strikes". If you don't have peds to go trough the bad periods you are *****ed :p

The reason I want it to be like this is that everyone has a choice. You can hunt small mobs and have the more steady returns or you can choose to hunt bigger mobs with a lot more loot swing and thus a chance of looting higher TT items on a more regular basis (more markup).

If you where to shoot a mob that costed you 10ped to kill and you wanted to loot 9 ped out of each mob you never had a chance of getting a 200ped item with markup you would just get the stackables with low markup. Now if you can live with having a lower return of lets say 85% (ooooh horrrrriibble how can i surive and so on..) then you would get 8.5ped of each mob and that half ped would add up so that on average at each 400th mob you would loot a item of 200ped tt. This is one item each 4000ped spent. So let's say you had a markup of 150% on that item you would have looted 100ped of markup at each 4000 ped spent and that is about 2.5% and you need a lot more to survive in longer therms. Most would say that 85% is pretty horrible but look at how small the chances of a item is at just 85% return if you had a very stable 85% return on each mob.

The loot system isn't as stable as in my example but that is what people are asking for and IMO it's like pissing in your pants to keep warm.

Disclamer, the average TT loot is higher than 90% but I used it as the max TT return you can get over time to make the math simpler. Mindark will be taking their cut anyways so the only thing that we can achieve with making more stable return is loosing a lot of markup items in loot.
 
People sometimes mix up to things when talking about loot return and average loot. When I talk about increasing the average loot I mean increasing the average loot, not increasing the minimum loot and decreasing the maximum loot.

Let's make a simple example. For a 100 ped hunting trip the loot return could looks like this:

25 % chance of getting 60 ped back
60 % chance of getting 80 ped back
15 % chance of getting 150 ped back.

The average return is: 25%x60+60%x80+15%x150 (15+48+22,50) =85,50ped

If we want a more stable return, it could look like this:

10 % chance of getting 60 ped back
80 % chance of getting 80 ped back
10 % chance of getting 150 ped back.

The average return is: 10%x60+80%x80+10%x150 (6+64+15) =85 ped

Nearly the same average return, but fewer "lows" and "highs". What I want is too increase the average return, not necessary the spread between low loot and high loot, even if i also prefer fewer extremes.
 
People sometimes mix up to things when talking about loot return and average loot. When I talk about increasing the average loot I mean increasing the average loot, not increasing the minimum loot and decreasing the maximum loot.

Let's make a simple example. For a 100 ped hunting trip the loot return could looks like this:

25 % chance of getting 60 ped back
60 % chance of getting 80 ped back
15 % chance of getting 150 ped back.

The average return is: 25%x60+60%x80+15%x150 (15+48+22,50) =85,50ped

If we want a more stable return, it could look like this:

10 % chance of getting 60 ped back
80 % chance of getting 80 ped back
10 % chance of getting 150 ped back.

The average return is: 10%x60+80%x80+10%x150 (6+64+15) =85 ped

Nearly the same average return, but fewer "lows" and "highs". What I want is too increase the average return, not necessary the spread between low loot and high loot, even if i also prefer fewer extremes.

It's the same thing with different words. The more stable it is the less peds are accumulated for items with TT (and markup).
 
It's the same thing with different words. The more stable it is the less peds are accumulated for items with TT (and markup).

It's not the same thing. For our purposes ignore the contents of loot & look at the figures only. If average loot return is increased regardless of the mechanics used to do that surely that is better for all players. Especially if you still loot the same amount of items with TT (with markup) that you are concerned about.
 
Nah space is still there. Arkadia has a lot of content but because of the hassle of having to go back to caly to sell stuff most dont bother to go.

I disagree. It is the lack of people that is the problem - not space.

Space is not a problem, because PPs are supposed to bring in their own customers. MA requires all new PPs to have their own angle, so they don't just parasite on Calypso's population. They simply can not, may not and should not rely on Calypso to succeed. PPs fail to advertise and bring new colonist; means PPs fail to get a large and stable population; means their planet dies.
 
Stop flying back to caly to sell everything.
 
It's not the same thing. For our purposes ignore the contents of loot & look at the figures only. If average loot return is increased regardless of the mechanics used to do that surely that is better for all players. Especially if you still loot the same amount of items with TT (with markup) that you are concerned about.

I agree, it's not the same thing. One is volatility (you could use median/mean as a measure of it) and the other is mean. But minim is missing that valid point because you others are missing another: the mean can't really be changed much. MA needs their cut, and without a much bigger player base, they won't survive if they decrease it. (And actually, Kim did say that some of the TEN events were given a slightly higher mean, taking a bit out of the house cut).

So really, only the volatility can be tweaked, and minim makes a good point that it shouldn't be too smoothed out. However, i don't think the mulmum loot was a good idea.
 
I disagree. It is the lack of people that is the problem - not space.

Space is not a problem, because PPs are supposed to bring in their own customers. MA requires all new PPs to have their own angle, so they don't just parasite on Calypso's population. They simply can not, may not and should not rely on Calypso to succeed. PPs fail to advertise and bring new colonist; means PPs fail to get a large and stable population; means their planet dies.

Of course they are and at least Arkadia has brought on many new players. The problem is that the new players also see that the planet they started on have a obsolete auction house and that to sell loot for markup they have to move the loot to calypso. At a low turnover with a low ped card the cost to warp back/forth with loot will soon eat up the markup they can earn so they just stay on calypso or even worse stay at ark and TT loot. If they stay at ark and TT loot they will lose their assess off pretty fast and quit the game.

The problem is not a simple and easy thing to explain and I'm sure I don't see every aspect of it either but the idea with space was to separate the economies but it has failed big time to do that. For hunters/miners/crafters with a big turnover a warp is close to cost free and it is totally risk-free also so it's not separating anything. The only thing it does is making it a hassle and making it so that many don't bother visiting other planets and help keeping the economy alive.

For new players space is separating the planets and keeping them from trying out the whole game tho... Is that good?

Stop flying back to caly to sell everything.

What do you suggest then? TT all loot cause it isn't selling in auction or to other players (in big enough volumes).

It's not the same thing. For our purposes ignore the contents of loot & look at the figures only. If average loot return is increased regardless of the mechanics used to do that surely that is better for all players. Especially if you still loot the same amount of items with TT (with markup) that you are concerned about.

That's another thing and it wont happen for the simple reason that Mindark has set that balance to make sure they don't lose money :)

What was mentioned above was smoothing out the bad periods and the good periods and keeping the same return as we have now just to have it more stable. That was what I thought I commented on at least but I might have gotten it wrong.
 
i dont see what you mean with your comment about socialism either, the system is capitalist to the core, but that does not mean that a more balanced system is not healthier, and without wanting to stray into RL discussions too much, just look at the real world for your example of what unchecked vampire capitalism does, and has done to the economy of this game for that matter, so be careful what you wish for because the worlds economy looks pretty bankrupt as it is?
to put it simply, it has nothing to do with socialism or with the chance to hof big sometimes, the fact is that your regular gamer is not prepared to spend limitless amounts if they constantly get 70% back, this is something they have been loud and clear about, and if MA, and you, want this game to grow then something has to give, and that something is this average return.

Actually the biggest defenders of the nonstop events with UL item rewards (which is the other active thread on PCF right now as you all are aware, lol) are using precisely the socialist argument: that it's good that UL weapons drop until they are cheap enough to be accessible to all. That whole idea is in direct opposition to the survival of the game as IronHeart's insightful post points out and minim has echoed.

Here's the hard truth <removed>: there are simply not enough resources for everyone to have everything they want, or perhaps even need. You have to draw the line or in the end nobody gets anything because the whole system goes broke. <removed> Meh sorry i digress but again here's the point back on topic:

This is not a game all can win. For there to be winners, there have to be losers. And, it's a game that if nobody can win, nobody will play. As i have been saying a lot lately about the dumbing down and bumbling destruction of MU MA has caused, "remove all decisions and all consequences from the game and nobody wins."

ETA: Now, the important difference is that being a loser in EU does not lead to deprivation of human rights. That's where talking of socialism and capitalism in game is hyperbolic. We're talking about very different consequences at end game, and playing at life isn't an elective activity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, it's not the same thing. One is volatility (you could use median/mean as a measure of it) and the other is mean. But minim is missing that valid point because you others are missing another: the mean can't really be changed much. MA needs their cut, and without a much bigger player base, they won't survive if they decrease it. (And actually, Kim did say that some of the TEN events were given a slightly higher mean, taking a bit out of the house cut).

So really, only the volatility can be tweaked, and minim makes a good point that it shouldn't be too smoothed out. However, i don't think the mulmum loot was a good idea.

Mindark will be taking their cut anyways so the only thing that we can achieve with making more stable return is loosing a lot of markup items in loot.

I overlooked it because it was to obvious and to quote myself I also said this in my original reply. Mindark's cut isn't a variable so I was making a point out of what would happen if they changed around on how our part of the loot is distributed to us.

We don't have many 5digits after the loot nerf (or improvement as some of the ones that like a more stable return would call it) so I think the mulmun drop was kinda nice. It's nothing in the big picture when it happens so rare so I don't really mind and I like to know that it's still possible :)
 
The problem is that the ones complaining hunt mobs that are bigger then their pockets IMO. If you hunt a smaller mob you will get a more steady return over a smaller amount of ped and this is ingame already. On the big mobs that have big loot swings you need a lot more ped to get the same average and you can hit very long "bad strikes". If you don't have peds to go trough the bad periods you are *****ed :p

The reason I want it to be like this is that everyone has a choice. You can hunt small mobs and have the more steady returns or you can choose to hunt bigger mobs with a lot more loot swing and thus a chance of looting higher TT items on a more regular basis (more markup).

no doubt that this is a good point and a mayor error many people make, even when they are told it is a bad idea, but realistically speaking the way things stand the only people that can work with this kind of system have to play often and play with a serious ped balance or deposit quite heavily.
if one is more casual about the game, and imho a lot of casual players are what we have lost over the years, then these big loot swings can hit extra hard, im sure we all know the people, and have experienced ourselves what it is like to miss the loot that takes one to a acceptable return.
the way i see it their needs to be some middle ground where the game is viable for a more casual mass market.
 
What do you suggest then? TT all loot cause it isn't selling in auction or to other players (in big enough volumes).

You can put smaller stacks on other planets. You can't expect new players to be buying 500 ped stacks of anything. It just seems silly to me to see so many non calypso planet specific stackables sold on Calypso. If you want economies on other planets to survive you can be a part of it.

It would help if planet partners could lower or remove auction fees as well if there aren't many listings.
 
Meh sorry i digress but again here's the point back on topic:
i think it was a big mistake to digress that far into that topic and not expect it to be rebutted, especially if you use some logical fallacies to make a point regarding the game, but i will be good and not respond to that other than to say that where i come from those systems work just fine all things considered. :)

This is not a game all can win. For there to be winners, there have to be losers. And, it's a game that if nobody can win, nobody will play. As i have been saying a lot lately about the dumbing down and bumbling destruction of MU MA has caused, "remove all decisions and all consequences from the game and nobody wins."
i dont think anyone is making the case to turn this place into carebear universe, just that there is a valid point to be made for wanting a little more value (ie time) for the money spent, and i am not arguing this from a point of someone who is unsuccessful at this game, quite the opposite, i can and always have handled the way the system works, and to sneakily return to your point im not mentioning, some people can see past their own self-interest to see how a little sacrifice for common goals can lead to greater opportunities and/or participation for all, and in the end serve ones own interest in the long term.
 
Actually the biggest defenders of the nonstop events with UL item rewards (which is the other active thread on PCF right now as you all are aware, lol) are using precisely the socialist argument: that it's good that UL weapons drop until they are cheap enough to be accessible to all. That whole idea is in direct opposition to the survival of the game as IronHeart's insightful post points out and minim has echoed.

Here's the hard truth, <removed>: there are simply not enough resources for everyone to have everything they want, or perhaps even need. You have to draw the line or in the end nobody gets anything because the whole system goes broke. <removed> Meh sorry i digress but again here's the point back on topic:

This is not a game all can win. For there to be winners, there have to be losers. And, it's a game that if nobody can win, nobody will play. As i have been saying a lot lately about the dumbing down and bumbling destruction of MU MA has caused, "remove all decisions and all consequences from the game and nobody wins."

ETA: Now, the important difference is that being a loser in EU does not lead to deprivation of human rights. That's where talking of socialism and capitalism in game is hyperbolic. We're talking about very different consequences at end game, and playing at life isn't an elective activity.

You are not wrong. But your chosen metaphor is very wrong. But instead of going off topic, I would ask you to not discuss politics, instead. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are not wrong. But your chosen metaphor is very wrong. But instead of going off topic, I would ask you to not discuss politics, instead. :rolleyes:

Sigh. <removed>

I wasn't advocating a particular political view or making a values or ethical judgment. If you prefer we could generalize and make less touchy the metaphor by saying that it's simply not possible with present technology for everyone on planet Earth to live with the standard of living that the first world citizens enjoy. Again, a simple statement about utilization and distribution of resources based on facts.

I'm not a casual observer or uneducated on the topic...

As i alluded to in the final paragraph, my views on these issue are very different in cases of humans instead of avatars. While a sweat gatherer uprising is laughable, labor movements IRL are important because there are human rights involved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Planets.

Need.

Crafters.
 
It's been near a year since the "soft" release of Cyrene came out and IMO nothing has changed with it - with no end in sight. Why add another planet that will sit there half done? It's sad, so I think any planet would be doomed to fail if they run how all the others have..

If it fails? I don't think it's a problem in a way. MA seems to get cash from people and then just find a new way to get new cash off new people. I think I lost any point.?
 
Planets.

Need.

Crafters.

I completely agree, but crafters need a market to sell their crafted goods. That comes with new players who stay and skill up. If a new player deposits $15 and gets to play for a week they aren't likely to stick around, hence the argument for better average returns.

Here's an idea... a crazy one maybe... but how about smoothing out the returns only on mobs under a certain level (200hp?) That way new people can play without experiencing the swings that their ped cards aren't ready to handle yet and more skilled / better funded avatars still have a decent chance at the big loots.

This seems to me to be a good compromise, you retain the $15 / month crowd and at the same time you're not pissing off the 'ubers' by messing with their shot at the big hits.
 
I completely agree [with John on the need for crafters], but crafters need a market to sell their crafted goods. That comes with new players who stay and skill up.

This is why I have confidence in the ongoing viability of Arkadia. I'm one of the more active crafters on Arkadia, selling weapons, armour and related gear. I'm seeing sustained growth in sales. In the image below you can see that while there is a lot of variability month to month, the clear trend is one of growth.

edit - no image? hmm - check my gallery post at https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=294441
showimage.php


If I have a look at sales break down, my most popular items are almost all for low level players.

Item Number sold
Ark23J 66
Cap12 136
CAP25 93
Cap7D 76
Key 1 89
Law0 87
Law13 101
Law5D 71
Pulsar 1 130
Rage10 90

But these are not generally the weapons used by completely new players, but rather by people who have begun to develop their skills and are ether profiting or depositing.
I don't believe people are coming to Arkadia to buy these sorts of weapons to use them somewhere else. I think they are being used on planet. Weapons being decayed, ammo being used. To me this is a sign of a small but healthy and growing planetary economy.

Rumours of the impending failure of the PP are merely rumours. I'm not sure what is going on with Cyrene's hard launch but I do see that with each release they deliver new content and are building the foundation for a solid economy. In that respect I think they are doing better than RT. I'm really looking forward to the launches of Monria and Toulan. In my ideal Entropia Universe there is a plethora of choices and more things that I want to do than I could possibly have time for and that's the way things seem to be heading.
 
Back
Top