Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

FYI: MindArk's president J-W Timkrans has been let go!

Status
Stave said:
I just want a direct fucking link to the original source, not a link to ep not a huge response, just one simple direct link. Is that too much to ask for?
Click to expand...

You make it a much bigger problem than it really is :laugh:

Google is your friend, then.
 
I tryed to google this with no result. There is no reference to any official page or forum that tells you David Simmonds is new CEO therefor I have to call this one a HOAX or simply - FAKE :)
 
AlexMoor said:
I tryed to google this with no result. There is no reference to any official page or forum that tells you David Simmonds is new CEO therefor I have to call this one a HOAX or simply - FAKE :)
Click to expand...

Seems to be genuine checking the link given above. Perhaps you need to improve your investigative detective skills :)
 
Just received a mail from David Simmonds saying mindark.com should have the announcement up very soon.

Again a big gratz to David Simmonds from EP. We look forward to what future brings :)
 
Hoping for a good future, congratulations David on your new post, and thankyou to your predecessor(s) for bringing us to where we are today.

PS - Get the name up on the door quick and glue it on with strong glue, screws and welded in place. (just in case).:silly2:
 
Last edited:
It's funny how some of you think that a boardroom battle is a sign of a weak company. It's precisely the opposite.
 
Oleg said:
It's funny how some of you think that a boardroom battle is a sign of a weak company. It's precisely the opposite.
Click to expand...

I think MA's boardroom should focus on how to be more competitive and more attractive to new players and not on fighting each other for selfish reasons... I don't want to prove you wrong, I am just saying that I expected some good changes on 19th of September and It's 30th September now and the only thing that happened so far is that they changed CEO 2times in 10 days. As a player, I don't feel like my investment in game is more secure than it was with old CEO.
 
“The shareholders have told us they are ready to take the company to the next level by installing a new board with a great knowledge of the business and a commitment to our long term vision of success,” said Mr. Timkrans. “I am very happy to have David Simmonds step into the role of CEO so that I can continue to focus on the vision for Entropia Universe going forward to make the next ten years even more rewarding for players, Planet Partners, shareholders and employees.”

see, even for players! :girl:


J.
 
I don't trust this "political" chit chat too much but I hope it will be that way ;-)
It's just my opinion, I don't want to get offensive ;)
But you know, they can't say anything bad about new board anyways :)
 
Lugzan said:
“The shareholders have told us they are ready to take the company to the next level by installing a new board with a great knowledge of the business and a commitment to our long term vision of success,” said Mr. Timkrans. “I am very happy to have David Simmonds step into the role of CEO so that I can continue to focus on the vision for Entropia Universe going forward to make the next ten years even more rewarding for players, Planet Partners, shareholders and employees.”

see, even for players! :girl:


J.
Click to expand...

Not to bust yer balls bud but the people stating this are the same ones that have blown smoke up our asses for years. The only thing different is MArco is no longer the mouth piece fror them.

As far as taking what they say as truth it should be OBVIOUS by now to anyone who has been thru more then 2 Vu's that what they write about what is happening and what actually transpires are two completely different and unrelated things minus the heading used to announce it.

What I read in MA speak that part about making EU better for the players is in reality..MAkeing things better for CERTAIN players. Which takes us back to the same people in charge , the same rules will apply, the same smoke and mirrors will be used altho someone may have shined them up a bit with the shake up, and the same old crap that drags EU down will continue.
 
What I'm wondering is whether EU will go in the direction of a casino RCE or a creative-freedom RCE. Second question is how much will it attempt to be a game, as opposed to a platform (like Second Life). My definition of "casino RCE" is where your odds of success are mostly ruled by random numbers. A "creative-freedom RCE" is where your odds of success are dependent on your actions. And finally, a platform only gives you the tools to make a game, not the game itself. How these things combine is outside the range of this post.

Anytime the head of a company is changed, one has to think there're probably changes in-store.
 
Last edited:
Here's another idea...

If they don't cap what you put into this game each month, then the top 20% are going to pay for about 85% of the game. This means that MA will have to spend a majority of their time giving attention to the top 20%. This will make the bottom 80% feel left out. Why? Because they will feel held back by their RL income. Everyone has just about the same amount of time to play, but not everybody is going to have the same income. So if two people are playing about the same amount but one guy is paying $300 per month and the other is paying $50/month then they're going to need to make extra content for the man paying $300/month. The man paying $300/month will sweep past the man paying $50/month and he'll feel stuck by comparison.

If their aim is to please more payers then they will probably cap what you can put into the game per month.

They may only cap crafting/hunting/mining and other core game fundamentals. Not sure how they would do that, though. To do all this would reduce complaints, I'm sure.

Anytime you tool your game for a minority, you restrict yourself.

On the other hand, it's possible they could restrict to the top 20%. But then there's the issue of the top 1%. In RL, the top 1% usually own up to about 40% of wealth. So this means that the top 19% will own about 53% of the share. The same deal I explained above applies here. With no cap in place then you're vulnerable.

It would probably be a softcap such that the more you spend the less you get in return. If done right, you could please the majority of players while still getting a lot of your money from the top 20%. The top 20% might feel a bit cheated, though. It depends whether they care that they pay outrageous money for a 2% boost in power. No matter what happens, the top 20% can theoretically pay 85% of the bills.

Some of it can be made up by allowing the top 20% to buy assets like land and apartments and planets and so on. As long as it doesn't make the bottom 80% feel like they're in the mud spinning their wheels.
 
Last edited:
There is no good reason for MA to limit or discourage deposits. Making all of their customers feel valued is a different issue altogether.

EU is not a level playing field because it's not a competition. If people want to spend shitloads of money to skill up or get better equipement that's fine with me. But the key is, even if you are only put a little money into the game there should be a way to play and enjoy the game. Personally I think there is. Set your budget and your expectations accordingly.

Regards,
KikkiJikki
 
KijkkiJikki said:
There is no good reason for MA to limit or discourage deposits. Making all of their customers feel valued is a different issue altogether.

EU is not a level playing field because it's not a competition. If people want to spend shitloads of money to skill up or get better equipement that's fine with me. But the key is, even if you are only put a little money into the game there should be a way to play and enjoy the game. Personally I think there is. Set your budget and your expectations accordingly.

Regards,
KikkiJikki
Click to expand...
If you don't limit how much deposits impact gameplay then the experience in EU is going to reflect on the experience in RL. In RL, the top 20% own about 85% of the wealth. In theory, this means that they could pay 85% of the bills. There is no way around this if there're no barriers between RL and EU. The disparity seen in RL between the rich and poor will just as easily been seen in EU with nothing in-place to stop it.

What you say about competition is probably true, but if deposits can take the place of raw skill then it's impotent. If not, then it might work. Raw skill, btw, is independent of your character and is strictly tied to you as a person. For example, if it was dirt cheap to make things in EU (everybody could afford to do it; probably based on the world average wage) then the judge of what you make would be dependent on your raw skill as a user of the game. Your in-game skill, which is represented by a number, would have no or little effect. In this type of game, your in-game skill could be nothing more than a rating others give you, not an actual mechanic. Another example of how this would work would be one where it's dirt cheap to buy guns and ammo and enhancers for hunting, but it's long and hard to learn all of the details about it and the behaviors of the creatures and the conditions of the environment. No longer would numbers dictate your ability. Instead, it would be your raw skill as a player - something that's not tied to your character file(s) on the server.

The problem with a game where it's completely competitive is that those with more time would better master the game physics. I'm sure that there could be teachers who teach people with less time how to be effective, but this divide would be a kind of barrier between those who have lots of time and those who have little. Furthermore, those with RL talents could translate those to EU. So, if you don't have any talents in RL, you'll likely not have any in EU, either. Those with no talents will feel ignored and exploited.

More than likely, some kind of hybrid is probably best. Life is not a closed-system.

- Limit the affect of deposits on gameplay mechanics; hunting/crafting/mining/etc
- 50/50 in-game skill and raw skill of the actual player
... (raw skill: game physics are simple enough that it doesn't overwhelm people with less time)
... (in-game skill: not so much that the rich/poor disparity becomes noticeable)
- Have a deep asset system: apartments, complexes, cities, properties, stations, planets, events, etc.
... (people with lots of money will buy up these things like they do in RL)
... (just make sure that it doesn't make them powerful as hunters/crafters/miners/etc)
- Etc.

Those're some ideas. Throw a bunch of crap on the wall and hopefully some of it sticks.

But anyway all of this kinetic exchange in power at MA is concerning. Makes me wonder.
 
Last edited:
This thread is going seriously off-topic since it was necroed but here are my 2 pecs:

In many MMOs buying influence/success with real life cash is frowned upon.

EU is totally different. The whole game is built upon that possibility. The possibility to invest real money into ingame assest to hopfully make a good deal and play at a sufficiently high level. You dont have to skill ingame for years if you dont want. Just deposit.
EU is also perhaps the ony MMO where its possible to legally sell you ingame power/sucess for IRL cash - the other side of the coin and something that attracts many players.

Not allowing big deposits would hurt MA a lot. The company get a large fraction of its income from a few big spenders.

EU is hyper capitalistic, If it wasnt it wouldnt be the EU we know. It has always been that way and always will be.
Those that cant accept that should probably play one of those other MMOs that dont allow buying your way to power ingame.
 
Last edited:
Status
Back
Top