this is mostly a good idea.
1. im not sure the 10% charge would work or how to implement it?? like u pay 10.10 peds for a 10ped esi possibly..... otherwise theres no gain for MA. they do not make any money from skills or the 10% loss on the chip.
Same as it works now. You take a 10 PED ESI. You extract 10 PED skill value into it. You end up with a 9 ped TT value implant in your inventory.
MA actually takes 10% of the implant TT value and also 10% of the skill value.
this is mostly a good idea.
2. while it would cause ppl to leave the game now that they can succesfly chip out, it would NOT be so bad for MA. as someone would have to deposit to buy the skills which would be the money that the other person withdraws. so not really that big of an issue.
Right it would allow some players to leave the game more easily, they would be able to sell out sooner, and sell more of their skills. Classic markup scenario MA revenue is not affected (directly) by this at all.
The prevailing theory is that Mindark revenue is still impacted negatively since obviously people who are trying to sell out are cycling peds at a mad rate and mindark will lose that decay? I'm not sure how anyone logics this out, it's fear-mongering.
Plus this ignores a positive impact of more selling in a market where auction fees probably generate more actual revenue for MA currently than the decay involved. In the skilling out process I mean, not the hunting decay.
The only argument against this is from the mid to high level hunters who feel that this would be MA taking other player's money out of their pockets, and threatening to leave the game.
this is mostly a good idea.
3. when said player who chipped out and left the game, decides to try again, they can easily buy back there skills.
Aye win for the buyer and the seller.
Not so much for the mid to high level hunters who literally don't do anything else but grind mobs for ESI and events who refuse to even see what else is up (because something will come up) so they quit. The rest of the people hunting in the game won't really be affected that much.
This removes a prohibitive startup cost barrier that will add real value to less commonly sought skills. You're far more likely to sell that skill when your not passing along 8-10x the skill value in MU to the skill buyer before you can try and break even.
===================================
Here are some example numbers. These aren't precise or even calculated so if there's no gross error this should make the point clearly.
ESI 1 PED bought for 900%
1 PED skill value to create .9 PED skill chip.
The cost 10 ped to sell for 5000% retail is 45 PED Minus fees and whatnot we call it 33-ish ped to the skill seller because auction fees are hard on that kind of markup.
So we have 7-8 peds for the hunter after fees.
We have about 33 ped for the skill seller after fees and decay.
We have 10 pec decay for mindark, and around 3-4 PED high markup auction fees from 2 transactions.
Skill buyer pays 45 PED for this skill at 5000%.
Now if we change the ESI to TT value:
1 ped ESI for 1 PED
1 PED skill value to create .9 PED skill chip.
The cost 2 ped to sell at auction for about 3800% retail is 35 ped Minus fees and whatnot we call it 33-ish ped to the skill seller because auction fees are hard on that kind of markup.
So we have about 33 ped for the skill seller after fees and decay.
We have 10 pec decay for mindark, and around 2-3 PED high markup auction fees from 1 transaction.
Skill buyer pays 35 PED for this skill at 3800%.
The disparity in the numbers will get larger, the lower the markup we're discussing.
I mean for the same example in a skill that's currently going for 1100% leaving the seller with 200% profit would be able to sell for like 220% to provide the skill seller with the same income.
To the buyer this is a price decrease on the order of 80% and the seller takes home the same profit.
===================================
So here's the rock:
Some hunters will get pissed and sell out. I think this is a low percentage who are already on the verge of leaving and don't care about how things will evolve they're tired of shit changing since PE and this is their last straw. Others seem to think that all players who hunt will suddenly quit the game in disgust.
What is that percentage?
And the potential hard place:
How much more skill will be trafficked at markups in the 100% to 500% range than in the 1000% to 2000% range, and will it make up for the hunters who quit cycling?
I think the ESI feature should have been TT from the beginning and we wouldn't have been here now, but here we are.
I think that the skill traffic would provide more profit in a trickle down effect than it would ever take to compensate MA for the missing hunters.
First immediately it will mean (IMO) more mid level players casually using more and larger gear to hunt/mine/craft bigger and faster. I do occasionally buy skills and this is just a prediction based on what I think the reaction would be. This is, obviously, an arguable point. if I can get 3-5x the advancement on average for my given PED I'm more likely to buy skills. So is, literally, anyone.
Second it's a reasonable gamble that the increase in sales would be enough to offset the lost auction fees from the hunters pre-selling the ESI. Again I see no problem here. The ability to grab an ESI and throw your skills in auction in an affordable way means more people will offer skills. And the massive decrease in markup percentages simply means more people will buy them.
Third this brings us to a serious increase in ESI decay and skill value burning perhaps bringing now more significant changes in markup to the seller. After all that 1100% skill is more likely to slowly decrease over time and while buyers and sellers enjoy the increased circulation and decreasing prices more and more skill value is still getting burned.
Many skills will level out at a price where the buyer pays less, and the seller makes more than they are making today, and more skills are being traded.
Also as thee pepe mentioned when the dedicated hunters figure out how to profit in this changed economy the more active and more affordable skill market will make it easier for the hunters who rage-quit over the change to quietly return
I think it always should have been this way. At no time have I ever had a hint this was under discussion at MA but if they did it, I personally believe the result would be overwhelmingly positive.
Really at this point it's just a re-wrap of the same old argument about tens of heavy cyclers vs hundreds of casuals.
And honestly is it even "tens" of heavy cyclers still going? I mean, heavy enough that one player shows a monthly impact om MAs overall bottom line? I don't honestly know.
But I do know that the mass of casuals and gummy bears with budgets will not be showing up until the game is friendly to them and this sort of thing is currently not. Come you ESI hunters what do you think the chance of new player retention is for an actual depositing player if they're able to skip the puny BS For a few PED and shoot a cool looking gun at a flashy mob?
Crap another wall of text. Whatever.
)
