Having just read through the new posts on this thread since yesterday, and seen a lot of very heated exchanges, but still nothing really getting anywhere, can someone please explain a few things to me.
1. Is it people's objective to actually get something changed, or merely to let off some steam and hence feel better.
I mean I know it's human nature when you feel angry you want to lash out at someone or something - MA are out of reach, so we start attacking each other. But is this everyone's primary objective, or do we actually want to achieve something positive.
If you want to express your anger, there are many effective ways of doing this.
2. Assuming people want something to be changed, what really is the objective. As I said yesterday, MA have issued the licences, and got the money for them. Done deal, now a solution is needed which includes that.
BMW said yesterday that a solution has been proposed - that MA need to do a complete U turn and allow unofficial competition to the banks. It doesn't take much to realise that since this would mean they could not deliver the exclusivity they had promised to the licence holders, the licence holders would complain about 'cheating unreliable MA' who need to do a complete U-turn on their latest policy. MA could then say, either 'all trades are final - hahahhaha we are off to the golf course'.
Or they could say ok we will buy back the licence if any licence holder feels cheated. They will then have to recover the cost from elsewhere - so lower loots, maybe an increase to decay etc.
So obviously that solution won't work. Or maybe this is what everyone wants - just scrap the banks, we would rather have less loot and higher decay, and no new features or bugfixes. I don't know what people prefer. But I do know software takes a lot of time and money to write and test and support, so it has to be paid for somehow.
However, what I actually suggested yesterday was that we needed a solution which works
with the continuing existence of the official licences.
Now maybe the licence-holders would say - yes we are all quite happy for unofficial competition. We are confident of our business plan, and feel no threat from any unlicensed competitors. Perhaps MA are currently canvassing opinion on that from the licence-holders, with a view to issuing a new statement.
But if not, here are some ideas to get the ball rolling. Do any of them come close:
- MA could just issue an apology for such a cack-handed PR exercise. They could state that they should have sought player community opinion before introducing the 'bank' licences, and could express regret that they handled this issue in a way that caused so much unhappiness.
OR
- MA could offer to provide an explicit statement that certain players who were offering a loan service as a business prior to the licence auction would not be subject to ban if they continue their operations, provided those players (a) continue to operate in a reputable way, and (b) ensure they advise all players they deal with that they enter into any agreement with them at their own risk
This would not be a blanket lifting of the ban, but an unofficial licence for players who were already offering the service which has now been banned. however, those players would be under a higher duty to behave reputably than normal players, in the same way that a licensed financial organisation has a higher duty to look after customers' funds than a normal business in the real world. That means these players have to put things right themselves in the case of a complaint, or MA will just cancel their unofficial licence. It may mean writing off some loans - this is a normal cost of a lending business.
Perhaps MA could also offer first chance to those people to acquire an official licence after the exclusive period expires, should they want to have one.
OR
- MA have some extra money now - so although they can't change what's been decided on the 'banks' situation, they do have flexibility with what they do with the money. What would we like? What is a priority? If they agreed to introduce vehicles in the next VU, would this offset the unhappiness?
Ok I am just trying to be constructive here - there are better ideas I'm sure. Point being instead of just bashing each other and MA, and demanding change without thinking through the consequences, surely we need to think about what we really want, and also what is possible?
about protecting the poor noobs 
Nope
i know, but this is the freedom MA wants 
