G
Guest
Guest
Again we lose because of the bots. If you know who these 2% are go get them.
Does trading money count as money going out?
Does trading money count as money going out?
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Anti Bot Measures/Update from Sarah
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
- Watchers 0
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Again we lose because of the bots. If you know who these 2% are go get them.
Does trading money count as money going out?
[/ QUOTE ]
It says player to player transactions do not count, so I am thinking no.
This brings about another question though.....if buying objects counts toward your pool, but player to player transactions do not, then would that mean that anybody selling custom craftables now needs to do so through a store lot? As somebody who sells alot of these, this is something I need to know, so can somebody who is now in the Town Hall please ask?
Again we lose because of the bots. If you know who these 2% are go get them.
Does trading money count as money going out?
[/ QUOTE ]
It says player to player transactions do not count, so I am thinking no.
This brings about another question though.....if buying objects counts toward your pool, but player to player transactions do not, then would that mean that anybody selling custom craftables now needs to do so through a store lot? As somebody who sells alot of these, this is something I need to know, so can somebody who is now in the Town Hall please ask?
G
Guest
Guest
*TTL*
hmmm, after having read this entire thread, there are a few lingering questions that I don't believe anyone has asked.
It has been stated that to credit your pool, you can build, buy object, upload CC, etc. Now, I am trying to wrap my mind around this... it seems the purpose is to act as a drain... but exactly HOW does buying an object drain the economy? That money just goes into the pocket of another sim. Or, does this imply buying an object FROM THE CATALOG? And if it means buying from a store, as most sims do, does the seller of that object get their account pool debited? (A store roomie starts with 3k in their pool. That roomie buys an object for $5k from the catalog... they get a $5k credit to their pool, now at $8k ... they turn around and sell it for $6k... does their account get debited $6k, thus bringing the pool to $2k? or does this not debit their pool at all, since it's a "player to player" action?)
Hmmm, color me confused
hmmm, after having read this entire thread, there are a few lingering questions that I don't believe anyone has asked.
It has been stated that to credit your pool, you can build, buy object, upload CC, etc. Now, I am trying to wrap my mind around this... it seems the purpose is to act as a drain... but exactly HOW does buying an object drain the economy? That money just goes into the pocket of another sim. Or, does this imply buying an object FROM THE CATALOG? And if it means buying from a store, as most sims do, does the seller of that object get their account pool debited? (A store roomie starts with 3k in their pool. That roomie buys an object for $5k from the catalog... they get a $5k credit to their pool, now at $8k ... they turn around and sell it for $6k... does their account get debited $6k, thus bringing the pool to $2k? or does this not debit their pool at all, since it's a "player to player" action?)
Hmmm, color me confused
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
That's another thing to be grateful for...players who play primarily in EA Land got advanced notice that this was coming. TC3 players did not, we're just told it already happened. When you consider that then I believe there's even less room to complain because you have time to prepare for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't like a train passing in the night - where you're stuck at the crossing for a few minutes, then it's gone and your routine returns to normal.
This is a permanent change.
The complaints are about the *change* - how much "warning" we get is irrelevant.
That's another thing to be grateful for...players who play primarily in EA Land got advanced notice that this was coming. TC3 players did not, we're just told it already happened. When you consider that then I believe there's even less room to complain because you have time to prepare for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't like a train passing in the night - where you're stuck at the crossing for a few minutes, then it's gone and your routine returns to normal.
This is a permanent change.
The complaints are about the *change* - how much "warning" we get is irrelevant.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
That's another thing to be grateful for...players who play primarily in EA Land got advanced notice that this was coming. TC3 players did not, we're just told it already happened. When you consider that then I believe there's even less room to complain because you have time to prepare for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't like a train passing in the night - where you're stuck at the crossing for a few minutes, then it's gone and your routine returns to normal.
This is a permanent change.
The complaints are about the *change* - how much "warning" we get is irrelevant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Point being that you have a chance to make some money before the change goes into effect, so it will not negatively impact you as fast as it will those who do not do any advanced planning, either because they choose not to if they are in EA Land, or if they were not given an opportunity to if they are in TC3. You're still going to have an effect over the change, but it will be delayed by being able to have a bit saved up.
<blockquote><hr>
That's another thing to be grateful for...players who play primarily in EA Land got advanced notice that this was coming. TC3 players did not, we're just told it already happened. When you consider that then I believe there's even less room to complain because you have time to prepare for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't like a train passing in the night - where you're stuck at the crossing for a few minutes, then it's gone and your routine returns to normal.
This is a permanent change.
The complaints are about the *change* - how much "warning" we get is irrelevant.
[/ QUOTE ]
Point being that you have a chance to make some money before the change goes into effect, so it will not negatively impact you as fast as it will those who do not do any advanced planning, either because they choose not to if they are in EA Land, or if they were not given an opportunity to if they are in TC3. You're still going to have an effect over the change, but it will be delayed by being able to have a bit saved up.
G
Guest
Guest
I just remember in another post "Goodbye", we are disposable, the way it is they don't care if we leave or are unhappy, they figure one quits the game one will join to take their place. So, this is the way they want this game and to Hell with us. It is take it or leave it.
I wonder if the dev's paycheck from EA ran the same way as ealand if they would keep their jobs or quit?
I wonder if the dev's paycheck from EA ran the same way as ealand if they would keep their jobs or quit?
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
I wonder if the dev's paycheck from EA ran the same way as ealand if they would keep their jobs or quit?
[/ QUOTE ]
If there was no other jobs in their field like the one that they have, I'm guessing they'd just have to deal with it the way we have to deal with the changes here because there is no other game of it's kind around.
ETA: In a way the first part of your post is correct though I do not believe it goes as far as "to Hell with us".....if it did there would be no blog for us to give our input directly to them. It's just that they cannot give us the things that we want if it is going to hurt their bottom line profits, because it is operating at SUCH a loss over the last 3 years that put the game in the jeopardy that it is in....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red. Hindsight is 20/20 and if I had known then what I know now I never would have contributed to the problem by taking the extended break that I did.
I wonder if the dev's paycheck from EA ran the same way as ealand if they would keep their jobs or quit?
[/ QUOTE ]
If there was no other jobs in their field like the one that they have, I'm guessing they'd just have to deal with it the way we have to deal with the changes here because there is no other game of it's kind around.
ETA: In a way the first part of your post is correct though I do not believe it goes as far as "to Hell with us".....if it did there would be no blog for us to give our input directly to them. It's just that they cannot give us the things that we want if it is going to hurt their bottom line profits, because it is operating at SUCH a loss over the last 3 years that put the game in the jeopardy that it is in....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red. Hindsight is 20/20 and if I had known then what I know now I never would have contributed to the problem by taking the extended break that I did.
I
imported_Dali Dalinza
Guest
*TTL*
If it is true that we get points (towards our "cap") for doing all those things that botters don't -- making friends, interacting, chatting -- that makes sense. One person at the meeting said that this information would only encourage the bot programmers to create programs that would include socializing, skilling, making purchases -- to which I had to reply if that happened it would mean botters were playing the game as it was intended to be played. I don't think EA would have a problem with THAT kind of bot!
If it is true that we get points (towards our "cap") for doing all those things that botters don't -- making friends, interacting, chatting -- that makes sense. One person at the meeting said that this information would only encourage the bot programmers to create programs that would include socializing, skilling, making purchases -- to which I had to reply if that happened it would mean botters were playing the game as it was intended to be played. I don't think EA would have a problem with THAT kind of bot!
P
poppet
Guest
Actually there is another game along similar lines to play ATITD (A tale in the desert) I left sims initially to play this game and will more than likely go back to it because EA land is messing the sims up worse than it was before
G
Guest
Guest
Sorry CB, but I can’t believe that you are trying to defend this.
As a person that has read a lot of your posts I can admire how you seem to always find a positive in almost everything.
But this one has very little if any to be positive about.
This is simply a huge kick in the a… to anyone who is not already established in the game.
A player that is already established will be able to work to it and should be able to without to many problems.
However a new player now has no hope of reaching any sort of goals in the game without spending a heap of real cash at the ATM.
I thought this whole exercise was to increase the player base, now it appears it was just to gain as much profit as they can from the people that brief the game.
As for deception, that has definitely happened, they have deceived us all, all the way through this as to what was their intentions.
An example of that is when Luc said the payouts have been made so low to fight against the botters, and that their new anti botting program should be in place within a week. He said that if that happens payouts will rise again.
Three months later we get this, which is not anti botting measures but more restrictions on how much will be made in the game. Done to enable the buyback to come in without any fear of loss of profit.
This has been their plan all along.
Failing to tell us what was installed and not only letting us believe otherwise, making statements like Lucs to have us believe otherwise. Well that can only be looked at as deception.
You may prefer to think that they would not possibly screw us in the way they have.
I think it is time you woke up and realise they have.
This is really an announcement that we will not be able to make anything more than a very small amount of what evers in the game.
It’s an announcement that the game is no longer going to played the way it used to be, that money objects and jobs are now of little importance to how the game will be played.
If you chose to think anything else, then I am sorry but you are really just holding on to a last glimmer of hope.
As a person that has read a lot of your posts I can admire how you seem to always find a positive in almost everything.
But this one has very little if any to be positive about.
This is simply a huge kick in the a… to anyone who is not already established in the game.
A player that is already established will be able to work to it and should be able to without to many problems.
However a new player now has no hope of reaching any sort of goals in the game without spending a heap of real cash at the ATM.
I thought this whole exercise was to increase the player base, now it appears it was just to gain as much profit as they can from the people that brief the game.
As for deception, that has definitely happened, they have deceived us all, all the way through this as to what was their intentions.
An example of that is when Luc said the payouts have been made so low to fight against the botters, and that their new anti botting program should be in place within a week. He said that if that happens payouts will rise again.
Three months later we get this, which is not anti botting measures but more restrictions on how much will be made in the game. Done to enable the buyback to come in without any fear of loss of profit.
This has been their plan all along.
Failing to tell us what was installed and not only letting us believe otherwise, making statements like Lucs to have us believe otherwise. Well that can only be looked at as deception.
You may prefer to think that they would not possibly screw us in the way they have.
I think it is time you woke up and realise they have.
This is really an announcement that we will not be able to make anything more than a very small amount of what evers in the game.
It’s an announcement that the game is no longer going to played the way it used to be, that money objects and jobs are now of little importance to how the game will be played.
If you chose to think anything else, then I am sorry but you are really just holding on to a last glimmer of hope.
P
poppet
Guest
Bite me has hit the nail on the head
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
*TTL*
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and no activity has been done that refills it, that account would not be able to earn more, until whatwever amount dribbled in."
Account...not avatar.
Greg also clarified that the 3000 amount was a place to start ("We had to start somewhere") and is subject to going up or down as their observation warrants. What Greg added was that "non-botting behavior" would somehow affect the cap. Non-botting behavior examples were given as making friends, socializing, and skilling. I commented that this last bit of information is something I think everyone needs to know.
From what Greg said, the "non-botting behavior" measurement is what Sarah meant when she stated only 2% of players would be affected. I gather that the botters, or suspected botters, make up 2% or so of the player base, and these players don't act like normal players. That said, Greg avoided being pinned down much, and I got the impression he might not know the specifics himself. Sarah needs to hit the town hall circuit soon, lol.
Edited to add: "Specifics" meaning about how the calculation would affect us, or concern us. Of course I don't expect any dev to share specifics that would aid botters in their quests. (So...put the flame throwers down and back away.)
[/ QUOTE ]
NOIP
Some of this is..... puzzling.
"Assuming that 3000 is the cap...". Assuming??? WTH???
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
*TTL*
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and no activity has been done that refills it, that account would not be able to earn more, until whatwever amount dribbled in."
Account...not avatar.
Greg also clarified that the 3000 amount was a place to start ("We had to start somewhere") and is subject to going up or down as their observation warrants. What Greg added was that "non-botting behavior" would somehow affect the cap. Non-botting behavior examples were given as making friends, socializing, and skilling. I commented that this last bit of information is something I think everyone needs to know.
From what Greg said, the "non-botting behavior" measurement is what Sarah meant when she stated only 2% of players would be affected. I gather that the botters, or suspected botters, make up 2% or so of the player base, and these players don't act like normal players. That said, Greg avoided being pinned down much, and I got the impression he might not know the specifics himself. Sarah needs to hit the town hall circuit soon, lol.
Edited to add: "Specifics" meaning about how the calculation would affect us, or concern us. Of course I don't expect any dev to share specifics that would aid botters in their quests. (So...put the flame throwers down and back away.)
[/ QUOTE ]
NOIP
Some of this is..... puzzling.
"Assuming that 3000 is the cap...". Assuming??? WTH???
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
P
poppet
Guest
I believe 3000 is that number, and now that people are quickly hitting that mark in tc3, they are changing the story to try and lessen the bad vibes about this, but i expect that 3000 will be a close approximation to what the end result will be when all is said and done.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
Personally, I think people are misreading what is in the post and jumping to conclusions and getting their panties in a bind. Goodness gracious, let's see how this thing works in TC3. Then if it really does SUCK, then we can complain about it
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you're right becuase right now my panties are driving me crazy!
[/ QUOTE ]I'm not wearing any.
I'm also of the mind to see how this works out in TC3 before jumping to any conclusions. I'm not going to jump up and down waving my pom-poms for these anti-bot measures, but I'm not going to condemn them or go into freak-out mode either. Not until I can see exactly how this will affect me.
<blockquote><hr>
Personally, I think people are misreading what is in the post and jumping to conclusions and getting their panties in a bind. Goodness gracious, let's see how this thing works in TC3. Then if it really does SUCK, then we can complain about it
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you're right becuase right now my panties are driving me crazy!
[/ QUOTE ]I'm not wearing any.
I'm also of the mind to see how this works out in TC3 before jumping to any conclusions. I'm not going to jump up and down waving my pom-poms for these anti-bot measures, but I'm not going to condemn them or go into freak-out mode either. Not until I can see exactly how this will affect me.
G
Guest
Guest
I see - that's a reason for less complaining - a 2 day headstart to offset the coming years of lost income?
Your logic is................ unique.
Your logic is................ unique.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
If you chose to think anything else, then I am sorry but you are really just holding on to a last glimmer of hope.
[/ QUOTE ]
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Having hope has kept me calm amongst "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". It keeps me from hitting the 'cancel subscription' button yet again. It keeps me from jumping to conclusions and assuming what is gonna happen until I have evidence in front of me that that is what is going to happen. It may in fact happen, and if it does, I won't be happy about it, but I see no point in getting myself worked up until I see proof in my own game that I am one of the 2% that is going to be affected....if that happens, THEN I'll decide what to do from there. Many players today here and on the blog have already said they made their decision to quit, so if they are proven wrong then they will have given up for nothing......the work I've put in means too much to me to give up that easily.
If you chose to think anything else, then I am sorry but you are really just holding on to a last glimmer of hope.
[/ QUOTE ]
You say that as if it is a bad thing. Having hope has kept me calm amongst "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". It keeps me from hitting the 'cancel subscription' button yet again. It keeps me from jumping to conclusions and assuming what is gonna happen until I have evidence in front of me that that is what is going to happen. It may in fact happen, and if it does, I won't be happy about it, but I see no point in getting myself worked up until I see proof in my own game that I am one of the 2% that is going to be affected....if that happens, THEN I'll decide what to do from there. Many players today here and on the blog have already said they made their decision to quit, so if they are proven wrong then they will have given up for nothing......the work I've put in means too much to me to give up that easily.
P
poppet
Guest
Whew, if 2 days is all we have, great, that will give me plenty of time to cancel my accounts before the second month payment is due
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red.
[/ QUOTE ]
What a load of crap!
Nobody is responsible for the failures of TSO except Maxis and EA. THEY had control of the game, THEY walked out on US!
THEY had every opportunity to improve the game, including a very loyal player base, and THEY just shoved us aside and walked away.
Don't you dare try to dump it on the players.
....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red.
[/ QUOTE ]
What a load of crap!
Nobody is responsible for the failures of TSO except Maxis and EA. THEY had control of the game, THEY walked out on US!
THEY had every opportunity to improve the game, including a very loyal player base, and THEY just shoved us aside and walked away.
Don't you dare try to dump it on the players.
I
imported_Dali Dalinza
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
[/ QUOTE ]
Grrr, I wish you would show up at Town Hall! Getting a straight answer is like trying to catch a greased pig using a pancake turner. Answers have been given, but not anything satisfying. Obfuscation is alive and well. For a reason, no doubt.
The important piece (IMO) that Greg is repeating is that the cap will be affected by game interactions -- what he calls "non-bot behavior." Sarah's post made it seem like spending money was the only thing that would contribute (in my reading of it).
Come down to town hall, Greg is still here.
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
[/ QUOTE ]
Grrr, I wish you would show up at Town Hall! Getting a straight answer is like trying to catch a greased pig using a pancake turner. Answers have been given, but not anything satisfying. Obfuscation is alive and well. For a reason, no doubt.
The important piece (IMO) that Greg is repeating is that the cap will be affected by game interactions -- what he calls "non-bot behavior." Sarah's post made it seem like spending money was the only thing that would contribute (in my reading of it).
Come down to town hall, Greg is still here.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
I see - that's a reason for less complaining - a 2 day headstart to offset the coming years of lost income?
Your logic is................ unique.
[/ QUOTE ]
coming years of lost income? Stretch much? Good grief, if my logic is unique so is your leg length or the springs in your feet to make you jump from one point to the next when the two points are miles apart.
What was the reason you're playing again? Is it just to have the *right* to come here and tell EA and the devs how badly they are fubaring things? For all your talk of condemnation toward AJ, you're beginning to sound exactly the way other players accuse him of sounding.
I see - that's a reason for less complaining - a 2 day headstart to offset the coming years of lost income?
Your logic is................ unique.
[/ QUOTE ]
coming years of lost income? Stretch much? Good grief, if my logic is unique so is your leg length or the springs in your feet to make you jump from one point to the next when the two points are miles apart.
What was the reason you're playing again? Is it just to have the *right* to come here and tell EA and the devs how badly they are fubaring things? For all your talk of condemnation toward AJ, you're beginning to sound exactly the way other players accuse him of sounding.
G
Guest
Guest
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
I
imported_Dali Dalinza
Guest
*TTL*
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red.
[/ QUOTE ]
What a load of crap!
Nobody is responsible for the failures of TSO except Maxis and EA. THEY had control of the game, THEY walked out on US!
THEY had every opportunity to improve the game, including a very loyal player base, and THEY just shoved us aside and walked away.
Don't you dare try to dump it on the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am so sick of hearing the "they could have just have pulled the plug" ARGHHH
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think? You only pull the life support when you think there is no quality of life left, and no hope to regaining it. Obviously, we loyalists shined like golden nuggets to their corporate eyes.
They could have pulled the plug....pfffft...let's put that phrase six feet under and stop with the we-should-just-be-grateful drivel. THEY should be grateful, get it??
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
....so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red.
[/ QUOTE ]
What a load of crap!
Nobody is responsible for the failures of TSO except Maxis and EA. THEY had control of the game, THEY walked out on US!
THEY had every opportunity to improve the game, including a very loyal player base, and THEY just shoved us aside and walked away.
Don't you dare try to dump it on the players.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am so sick of hearing the "they could have just have pulled the plug" ARGHHH
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think? You only pull the life support when you think there is no quality of life left, and no hope to regaining it. Obviously, we loyalists shined like golden nuggets to their corporate eyes.
They could have pulled the plug....pfffft...let's put that phrase six feet under and stop with the we-should-just-be-grateful drivel. THEY should be grateful, get it??
P
poppet
Guest
TTL
What reallly galls me is the fact that EA assumes the average player will not comprehend the actual ramifications of what sarah was saying. We are not mindless (mostly
)
What reallly galls me is the fact that EA assumes the average player will not comprehend the actual ramifications of what sarah was saying. We are not mindless (mostly
)
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
I
imported_ChipsAhoy
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
I see - that's a reason for less complaining - a 2 day headstart to offset the coming years of lost income?
Your logic is................ unique.
[/ QUOTE ]
coming years of lost income? Stretch much? Good grief, if my logic is unique so is your leg length or the springs in your feet to make you jump from one point to the next when the two points are miles apart.
What was the reason you're playing again? Is it just to have the *right* to come here and tell EA and the devs how badly they are fubaring things? For all your talk of condemnation toward AJ, you're beginning to sound exactly the way other players accuse him of sounding.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? You don't believe EALand will be around that long? Turn in your pom-poms.
Yeah, I get on the devs when I think they are wrong.
I also back them when I think they are right - and defend them when they are unfairly accused. (and accuse them when they are unfairly defended
)
What do you do? Besides throw rose petals wherever they walk, analyse every detail to within an inch of it's life, mis-read EVERY post EVER posted, go out of your way to spread (and create rumors), and kiss the rear-end of every person you think can be of benefit to you.
There's more (you know what I mean), but the RoC prevents me from posting.
<blockquote><hr>
I see - that's a reason for less complaining - a 2 day headstart to offset the coming years of lost income?
Your logic is................ unique.
[/ QUOTE ]
coming years of lost income? Stretch much? Good grief, if my logic is unique so is your leg length or the springs in your feet to make you jump from one point to the next when the two points are miles apart.
What was the reason you're playing again? Is it just to have the *right* to come here and tell EA and the devs how badly they are fubaring things? For all your talk of condemnation toward AJ, you're beginning to sound exactly the way other players accuse him of sounding.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? You don't believe EALand will be around that long? Turn in your pom-poms.
Yeah, I get on the devs when I think they are wrong.
I also back them when I think they are right - and defend them when they are unfairly accused. (and accuse them when they are unfairly defended
What do you do? Besides throw rose petals wherever they walk, analyse every detail to within an inch of it's life, mis-read EVERY post EVER posted, go out of your way to spread (and create rumors), and kiss the rear-end of every person you think can be of benefit to you.
There's more (you know what I mean), but the RoC prevents me from posting.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
[/ QUOTE ]
Grrr, I wish you would show up at Town Hall! Getting a straight answer is like trying to catch a greased pig using a pancake turner. Answers have been given, but not anything satisfying. Obfuscation is alive and well. For a reason, no doubt.
The important piece (IMO) that Greg is repeating is that the cap will be affected by game interactions -- what he calls "non-bot behavior." Sarah's post made it seem like spending money was the only thing that would contribute (in my reading of it).
Come down to town hall, Greg is still here.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, thanks - the atmosphere is not conducive to information gathering.
Plus, getting a straight answer is like herding cats.
<blockquote><hr>
"We had to start somewhere.", sounds like they just picked a number at random, but - according to the blog, we know they didn't do that; they have monitored, measured, and evaluated since EALand opened. They then used the data to form their "perspective". So, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would start at the point which their "perspective" says is optimal?
If so, and if 3000 isn't *that* number - what is?
[/ QUOTE ]
Grrr, I wish you would show up at Town Hall! Getting a straight answer is like trying to catch a greased pig using a pancake turner. Answers have been given, but not anything satisfying. Obfuscation is alive and well. For a reason, no doubt.
The important piece (IMO) that Greg is repeating is that the cap will be affected by game interactions -- what he calls "non-bot behavior." Sarah's post made it seem like spending money was the only thing that would contribute (in my reading of it).
Come down to town hall, Greg is still here.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, thanks - the atmosphere is not conducive to information gathering.
Plus, getting a straight answer is like herding cats.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in my post did I say the pool will be reduced to 500.
The pool will always be 3000, we are given back 500 each week.
No matter how much the pool is, the 500 becomes the amount we can earn each week before we are back where we started.
And please stop saying in your posts that the 3000 is where our payouts will start to decline, because that is incorrect.
It says the lower your pool gets the lower your payouts will be.
I suggest you read the post again and understand what the formular is before you start accusing people of going off the deep end without understanding what it means.
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in my post did I say the pool will be reduced to 500.
The pool will always be 3000, we are given back 500 each week.
No matter how much the pool is, the 500 becomes the amount we can earn each week before we are back where we started.
And please stop saying in your posts that the 3000 is where our payouts will start to decline, because that is incorrect.
It says the lower your pool gets the lower your payouts will be.
I suggest you read the post again and understand what the formular is before you start accusing people of going off the deep end without understanding what it means.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!!! Exactly. If they wanted us gone, the 1000 or so accounts (can't remember the number I read) wouldn't have stopped them. We're still here only because Luc came in and is trying to create something from 8 year old code, still operating on a shoestring budget *and* is having to put up with heaps of abuse for his troubles. As I said in another post a few days ago, even a 250k a year salary wouldn't be enough to make me put up with some of this, so I cannot understand how anybody can say that he isn't dedicated to this game and trying to make something of it. Some of the ways they are going about it seem a little [censored]-eyed at times, sure, but I have to believe at the center of it are only the best intentions for both the company he is employed by, and us......the problem is that sometimes serving the two interests collide and then a decision has to be made in which direction to go.
<blockquote><hr>
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!!! Exactly. If they wanted us gone, the 1000 or so accounts (can't remember the number I read) wouldn't have stopped them. We're still here only because Luc came in and is trying to create something from 8 year old code, still operating on a shoestring budget *and* is having to put up with heaps of abuse for his troubles. As I said in another post a few days ago, even a 250k a year salary wouldn't be enough to make me put up with some of this, so I cannot understand how anybody can say that he isn't dedicated to this game and trying to make something of it. Some of the ways they are going about it seem a little [censored]-eyed at times, sure, but I have to believe at the center of it are only the best intentions for both the company he is employed by, and us......the problem is that sometimes serving the two interests collide and then a decision has to be made in which direction to go.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm..... do you have the other half of this amulet???
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm..... do you have the other half of this amulet???
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in my post did I say the pool will be reduced to 500.
The pool will always be 3000, we are given back 500 each week.
No matter how much the pool is, the 500 becomes the amount we can earn each week before we are back where we started.
And please stop saying in your posts that the 3000 is where our payouts will start to decline, because that is incorrect.
It says the lower your pool gets the lower your payouts will be.
I suggest you read the post again and understand what the formular is before you start accusing people of going off the deep end without understanding what it means.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever, I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree for now and see by the end of the week which position turns out to be correct. If you are correct then I will only be able to work one complete shift at the diner tomorrow before my payout drops....if I am correct then it will take 2-3 days to start seeing a drop, so either way it'll be obvious by Friday.
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
The 3000 isn't really the main worry, the way I read it that is the pool size will remain for the entire life of our accounts. That's assuming they keep it at 3000.
Also some people in here seem to think that the 3000 is where we start getting the deductions in what we can earn.
It says that the lower the pool gets the lower our payouts will be and not when we get over the 3000.
I would guess that when our pool is empty the payouts would be almost 0.
The big problem here is that they only give us back 500 in the pool each week.
I take that as the ongoing part of the formular, the 3000 is just the pool size.
We will not be granted another full 3000 in our pools each month, week or what ever, it only gets altered by our game play and the 500 EA deducts each week.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was nothing in that post that said the payout pool would be reduced to 500 after the initial week. It said that 500 would be added to it *BY EA* each week. It said that the initial deposit by EA is 3000 and that we control the pool after that ourselves by spending and earning other than the 500. If 500 was the total amount of the pool then there is no way that it would only affect 2% of the playerbase. NO WAY
Everybody for the love of mike PLEASE stop injecting hysteria until we've had a few days to figure out exactly what this is going to mean. All you all have now is your own assumptions which from the tone of the thread lean toward the pesssimistic. By the end of the week players ought to able to post the results of their own FIRST HAND experiments, and that will give us all a better idea of what we're looking at. If you don't trust the dev's words, then fine but wait until you have your own numbers that you CAN trust before you go off the deep end and drag a bunch of people down with you!
[/ QUOTE ]
Where in my post did I say the pool will be reduced to 500.
The pool will always be 3000, we are given back 500 each week.
No matter how much the pool is, the 500 becomes the amount we can earn each week before we are back where we started.
And please stop saying in your posts that the 3000 is where our payouts will start to decline, because that is incorrect.
It says the lower your pool gets the lower your payouts will be.
I suggest you read the post again and understand what the formular is before you start accusing people of going off the deep end without understanding what it means.
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever, I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree for now and see by the end of the week which position turns out to be correct. If you are correct then I will only be able to work one complete shift at the diner tomorrow before my payout drops....if I am correct then it will take 2-3 days to start seeing a drop, so either way it'll be obvious by Friday.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.
So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.
If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....
No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.
We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.
So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.
If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....
No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.
So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.
If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....
No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
But think about it...if that were really the case then wouldn't they do away with the store category all together, if purchasing objects from store lots wasn't going to count toward our pool? If this was the case then the only people who would ever reduce their pool would be store owners who use the catalog to restock.....and they've said that the majority of the player base isn't going to be affected, so the facts just dont logically add up to what you're afraid of, except the part that they want us to use the ATMs more....that much I can buy into, since that's where they are going to see the most profit margin, but they KNOW what would happen if basically nobody in game could make money, that would also affect their bottom line, so I'm adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
<blockquote><hr>
We will give users an initial credit for what they can earn, then we’ll give them an additional credit each week and the users themselves can accumulate credit by contributing to the game through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc. Activities such as using money objects and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects will reduce your credit. If the credit ever gets very low (and for most people it should never) you will get increasingly reduced payouts until you accumulate more credit, through your own activity or through that weekly boost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I fear that bold part means buying from the catalog. Not buying from a store. If it meant buying from a store you could just set up store buys with friends to cancel out your income.
So basically you can make some money but you must spent it in ways that the money goes back to EA.
If you have a house that is complete and have all the objects you want, you have nothing to reduce your allotment, unless you tear down walls and rebuild them....
No matter what the cap is, this is a horrible idea. they just want us to use the ATMs.
[/ QUOTE ]
But think about it...if that were really the case then wouldn't they do away with the store category all together, if purchasing objects from store lots wasn't going to count toward our pool? If this was the case then the only people who would ever reduce their pool would be store owners who use the catalog to restock.....and they've said that the majority of the player base isn't going to be affected, so the facts just dont logically add up to what you're afraid of, except the part that they want us to use the ATMs more....that much I can buy into, since that's where they are going to see the most profit margin, but they KNOW what would happen if basically nobody in game could make money, that would also affect their bottom line, so I'm adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
G
Guest
Guest
Taken from the original post.
Your account (set of characters) has a “Payout Pool” associated with it. (Meaning your account, not each sim)
Your Payout Pool is given an initial credit of 3,000 (Note: “initial” meaning that is what you start with, not each week, each month or what ever)
This is how much money your characters can earn until you or we contribute back to that pool.
We will give every account some amount of credit per week into their Payout Pool. It’s 500 for now but we’ll be keeping an eye on what it should be so that people essentially do not need to be concerned about their Payout Pool at all. (Note that the 500 is all that is given each week, not 3000. The 3000 is the pool size, not what is given each week or month)
You will not be able to access your Payout Pool balance and we may turn on/off this feature (during events, etc.).
You credit your Payout Pool through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc.
You debit your Payout Pool through activities such as jobs, using money objects, and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects.
Player to player activities such as using tip jars, secure trade, the interaction “Give Money”, door charges, etc., do not contribute to, or deduct from, your Payout Pool.
If your Payout Pool ever gets very low your payouts will decrease slowly until its balance is increased again through either your activities or the credits mentioned above. (Note here that it says if your payout pool gets low, not over)
Overall this feature is intended to safeguard us, and you, from the effect of bot-like activity in the game, and it will act as a safety net, allowing us to experiment more (with our dynamic market and payouts, for example).
Your account (set of characters) has a “Payout Pool” associated with it. (Meaning your account, not each sim)
Your Payout Pool is given an initial credit of 3,000 (Note: “initial” meaning that is what you start with, not each week, each month or what ever)
This is how much money your characters can earn until you or we contribute back to that pool.
We will give every account some amount of credit per week into their Payout Pool. It’s 500 for now but we’ll be keeping an eye on what it should be so that people essentially do not need to be concerned about their Payout Pool at all. (Note that the 500 is all that is given each week, not 3000. The 3000 is the pool size, not what is given each week or month)
You will not be able to access your Payout Pool balance and we may turn on/off this feature (during events, etc.).
You credit your Payout Pool through activities such as buying objects, uploading custom content, buying a lot, etc.
You debit your Payout Pool through activities such as jobs, using money objects, and getting kickbacks from others using your money objects.
Player to player activities such as using tip jars, secure trade, the interaction “Give Money”, door charges, etc., do not contribute to, or deduct from, your Payout Pool.
If your Payout Pool ever gets very low your payouts will decrease slowly until its balance is increased again through either your activities or the credits mentioned above. (Note here that it says if your payout pool gets low, not over)
Overall this feature is intended to safeguard us, and you, from the effect of bot-like activity in the game, and it will act as a safety net, allowing us to experiment more (with our dynamic market and payouts, for example).
G
Guest
Guest
This is another bad thing about this system, and it was said by Greg.
<blockquote><hr>
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and no activity has been done that refills it, that account would not be able to earn more, until whatever amount dribbled in."
[/ QUOTE ]
Once you make your cap you cant even make more even if it is spent?????
WTH is that? If I have a day that I can spend time making money, I blow the whole week?
<blockquote><hr>
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and no activity has been done that refills it, that account would not be able to earn more, until whatever amount dribbled in."
[/ QUOTE ]
Once you make your cap you cant even make more even if it is spent?????
WTH is that? If I have a day that I can spend time making money, I blow the whole week?
G
Guest
Guest
As I said, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Based on the rsponses in the blog I really think much more is being made out of this than need be. If I turn out to be wrong by Friday, I have no problem admitting so. But I refuse to give into hysteria without evidence.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
This is another bad thing about this system, and it was said by Greg.
<blockquote><hr>
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and <font color="red">no activity has been done that refills it,</font> that account would not be able to earn more, until whatever amount dribbled in."
[/ QUOTE ]
Once you make your cap you cant even make more even if it is spent?????
WTH is that? If I have a day that I can spend time making money, I blow the whole week?
[/ QUOTE ]
I bolded the other part you should have bolded in red. If you make your 3k in one day and you want to make more that week, just do one of the things that puts money back into the pool, and voila, you have more money you can make. The only potential problem I see with this is the cost of land, with other objects they can certainly be bought in approximately 3k increments.....approximately because there's always a chance that you'd spend 2500 at once or 4000 at once instead of 3k. What this is doing from what I can see is trying to discourage people from buying plots of land themselves rather than pooling their resources with somebody else to get a plot together, or moving in to somewhere that already exists. Really in actuality, most newbies are not ready to host their own lots.....some are, of course, but for the most part they really should start out in conjunction with other people, or homeless until they get a feel for game mechanics, unless their lot is going to be a private residence lot just to chill out yet.
This is another bad thing about this system, and it was said by Greg.
<blockquote><hr>
Someone asked Greg, "When we get this 3000 cap, if we spend it are we able to make more in that week?"
Greg replied: "Assuming that 3000 is the cap, and <font color="red">no activity has been done that refills it,</font> that account would not be able to earn more, until whatever amount dribbled in."
[/ QUOTE ]
Once you make your cap you cant even make more even if it is spent?????
WTH is that? If I have a day that I can spend time making money, I blow the whole week?
[/ QUOTE ]
I bolded the other part you should have bolded in red. If you make your 3k in one day and you want to make more that week, just do one of the things that puts money back into the pool, and voila, you have more money you can make. The only potential problem I see with this is the cost of land, with other objects they can certainly be bought in approximately 3k increments.....approximately because there's always a chance that you'd spend 2500 at once or 4000 at once instead of 3k. What this is doing from what I can see is trying to discourage people from buying plots of land themselves rather than pooling their resources with somebody else to get a plot together, or moving in to somewhere that already exists. Really in actuality, most newbies are not ready to host their own lots.....some are, of course, but for the most part they really should start out in conjunction with other people, or homeless until they get a feel for game mechanics, unless their lot is going to be a private residence lot just to chill out yet.
I
imported_Trudymac
Guest
Yes, when you have nothing but your opinion to show for "facts", it's always helpful to then try and paint people with concerns as being "hysterical" or some other veiled personal attack.
I think you just like to argue, and in the future I won't be replying to you when you come in to "correct" me (or anyone else), with semantic games, and other baffling lines of reasoning, which just further illustrate your need to argue.
I think you just like to argue, and in the future I won't be replying to you when you come in to "correct" me (or anyone else), with semantic games, and other baffling lines of reasoning, which just further illustrate your need to argue.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me help your math.
First, if buying from stores counted, the money is still in the system. It defeats the purpose.
Second, I would just go to donavans size 0 store and buy a food processor for 3k, then he would come to mine and buy a urinal for 3k.
That defeats the purpose.
Ill type slow so you can understand.
The money needs to go back to EA for you to get more credits.
No transaction to a player will credit your account, not buying from a buffet or a store lot. If it does they did not think this through and it is flawed. Donavan and I would share 3k buffet meals if that counted.
Clear?
And I wouldn't interact with Donavan, that part is made up.
adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me help your math.
First, if buying from stores counted, the money is still in the system. It defeats the purpose.
Second, I would just go to donavans size 0 store and buy a food processor for 3k, then he would come to mine and buy a urinal for 3k.
That defeats the purpose.
Ill type slow so you can understand.
The money needs to go back to EA for you to get more credits.
No transaction to a player will credit your account, not buying from a buffet or a store lot. If it does they did not think this through and it is flawed. Donavan and I would share 3k buffet meals if that counted.
Clear?
And I wouldn't interact with Donavan, that part is made up.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
just do one of the things that puts money back into the pool, and voila, you have more money you can make.
[/ QUOTE ]
And what might that be?
Doing the tango with a bear? Talking in room chat? Firing my cannon at Donavan? Whisper in an avatars ear?
We dont know yet.
just do one of the things that puts money back into the pool, and voila, you have more money you can make.
[/ QUOTE ]
And what might that be?
Doing the tango with a bear? Talking in room chat? Firing my cannon at Donavan? Whisper in an avatars ear?
We dont know yet.
G
Guest
Guest
I just relized I must be part of the 2%, and I have never botted. But I make way more then 3k a week per account.
3k a week is just 6 hours of game play a week doing jam....... Some weeks I can do that in one day. People that make lots more on jobs will only be able to go to work a few times a week. It takes a few minutes to shop what are we to do the rest of the week? Find a new game to play I guess.
I am saving up for a lot that cost over 36k. How is that going to happen now? With your plan I don't see me ever getting that kind of money. (Our neighborhood in BF is doomed. The merge messed it up and we can't all join since we are so far apart. I keep trying to make money and buy lots so the hood will grow so others waiting for it to grow can join.)
Course in the mean time I have also been saving and buying CC I am glad I just paid for and got my order of 10 cc chairs at comfort 10 that special order cost me 10k.
I have a feeling way too much time was put in to this crazy idea. I am sure not one dev thought this would go over well with us players. But then who cares about the players we are just a bunch of complainers. I hope the new players that come along to replace us will not complain so much.
This plan also protects the large apple sellers. The money they make does not count against them. What makes anyone think the apple sellers are really spending much time with money objects. Heavens these are the people that will really be able to make real money on ealand. They will have all the ebucks to sell back at the atms then that interaction happens. Make me think some of the devs own a ton of apples trees.
3k a week is just 6 hours of game play a week doing jam....... Some weeks I can do that in one day. People that make lots more on jobs will only be able to go to work a few times a week. It takes a few minutes to shop what are we to do the rest of the week? Find a new game to play I guess.
I am saving up for a lot that cost over 36k. How is that going to happen now? With your plan I don't see me ever getting that kind of money. (Our neighborhood in BF is doomed. The merge messed it up and we can't all join since we are so far apart. I keep trying to make money and buy lots so the hood will grow so others waiting for it to grow can join.)
Course in the mean time I have also been saving and buying CC I am glad I just paid for and got my order of 10 cc chairs at comfort 10 that special order cost me 10k.
I have a feeling way too much time was put in to this crazy idea. I am sure not one dev thought this would go over well with us players. But then who cares about the players we are just a bunch of complainers. I hope the new players that come along to replace us will not complain so much.
This plan also protects the large apple sellers. The money they make does not count against them. What makes anyone think the apple sellers are really spending much time with money objects. Heavens these are the people that will really be able to make real money on ealand. They will have all the ebucks to sell back at the atms then that interaction happens. Make me think some of the devs own a ton of apples trees.
G
Guest
Guest
so in a way this is the fault of every player, including myself, that said 'to Hell with *you, EA' and cancelled our subscriptions, thus putting this game in the red. Hindsight is 20/20 and if I had known then what I know now I never would have contributed to the problem by taking the extended break that I did.
lol too funny, i thought players quit the game because ea dropped the ball, just left us all hanging there
gosh, now i feel so guilty knowing its our fault lol
lol too funny, i thought players quit the game because ea dropped the ball, just left us all hanging there
G
Guest
Guest
If I get you correctly you are trying to explain this.
I earn 2k in money objects, my pool is now decreased to 1k.
I go to Donovan and buy something worth 2k, my pool is now 3k again.
Donovan has also earned 2k on money objects, his pool is also now 1k.
He goes to my store and buys an item for 2k, now his pool is back to 3k.
Both the items sold are very cheap items worth say 10 whatevers to buy from EA.
What happens then is we both have made close to the 2k from money objects and by doing the buy and sell thing our pools are still 3k.
I had also thought of this, and some others as well. It took me about 5 mins to see what could be done to get around it with the way they have set things up.
What should supprise me is that the devs didn't, but it no longer does as they do not seem to put a lot of thought into anything they do.
I earn 2k in money objects, my pool is now decreased to 1k.
I go to Donovan and buy something worth 2k, my pool is now 3k again.
Donovan has also earned 2k on money objects, his pool is also now 1k.
He goes to my store and buys an item for 2k, now his pool is back to 3k.
Both the items sold are very cheap items worth say 10 whatevers to buy from EA.
What happens then is we both have made close to the 2k from money objects and by doing the buy and sell thing our pools are still 3k.
I had also thought of this, and some others as well. It took me about 5 mins to see what could be done to get around it with the way they have set things up.
What should supprise me is that the devs didn't, but it no longer does as they do not seem to put a lot of thought into anything they do.
I
imported_Trudymac
Guest
And it sounds like we won't know for sure.
Greg said in Townhall that they likely won't be revealing all that info. I imagine that is because if they did, they would be helping the bad guys.
Greg said in Townhall that they likely won't be revealing all that info. I imagine that is because if they did, they would be helping the bad guys.
G
Guest
Guest
Exactly.
They want the money out of the game.
The sad thing is, they mentioned 3k. Does any of them PLAY the game? Are they clueless about how much their own objects payout?
3k is nothing.
They want the money out of the game.
The sad thing is, they mentioned 3k. Does any of them PLAY the game? Are they clueless about how much their own objects payout?
3k is nothing.
G
Guest
Guest
Very Very true.....
G
Guest
Guest
I am so sick of hearing the "they could have just have pulled the plug" ARGHHH
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think? You only pull the life support when you think there is no quality of life left, and no hope to regaining it. Obviously, we loyalists shined like golden nuggets to their corporate eyes.
They could have pulled the plug....pfffft...let's put that phrase six feet under and stop with the we-should-just-be-grateful drivel. THEY should be grateful, get it??
You Go Girl!!
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think? You only pull the life support when you think there is no quality of life left, and no hope to regaining it. Obviously, we loyalists shined like golden nuggets to their corporate eyes.
They could have pulled the plug....pfffft...let's put that phrase six feet under and stop with the we-should-just-be-grateful drivel. THEY should be grateful, get it??
You Go Girl!!
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me help your math.
First, if buying from stores counted, the money is still in the system. It defeats the purpose.
Second, I would just go to donavans size 0 store and buy a food processor for 3k, then he would come to mine and buy a urinal for 3k.
That defeats the purpose.
Ill type slow so you can understand.
The money needs to go back to EA for you to get more credits.
No transaction to a player will credit your account, not buying from a buffet or a store lot. If it does they did not think this through and it is flawed. Donavan and I would share 3k buffet meals if that counted.
Clear?
And I wouldn't interact with Donavan, that part is made up.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct that that is a potential loophole, but they will be monitoring each and every transaction and I have no doubt that they'd consider that scenario an exploit since it's obvious a toilet or urinal would not be worth 3,000. I understand where your concern is coming from, but I can't understand why if this was the case they would not have just said they were doing away with the store category all together, because that is in effect what it would do. Besides, with those objects the money does *eventually* go back to EA in the form of restocking the store, doesn't it? In that case, it might be logical for them to delete the plethora of extra objects that were imported from the production cities to force those store ownes to restock from the catalog, but I don't even think they are going to do that. The only way we are going to get our answers is to chase down Greg, Lee, Luc or Sarah in game and ask them directly, or to conduct our own experiment over this next week. If this stuff is proven to be correct then it won't be hysteria, it will be legitimate worry over how this is going to affect the game, but right this minute we don't have any cold hard facts, just our interpretation of written words.......mostly from people who have a history of looking at every potential negatives, mixed in with a few people who are usually not negative just simply paying too much attention to theories of others.....the classic case of how negative outlooks can affect the people around them. ALL I am asking is that we *wait* a few days for real numbers to come in before going into panic mode, and I don't understand why that is so difficult
<blockquote><hr>
adding up your 2 and 2 and getting 36.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let me help your math.
First, if buying from stores counted, the money is still in the system. It defeats the purpose.
Second, I would just go to donavans size 0 store and buy a food processor for 3k, then he would come to mine and buy a urinal for 3k.
That defeats the purpose.
Ill type slow so you can understand.
The money needs to go back to EA for you to get more credits.
No transaction to a player will credit your account, not buying from a buffet or a store lot. If it does they did not think this through and it is flawed. Donavan and I would share 3k buffet meals if that counted.
Clear?
And I wouldn't interact with Donavan, that part is made up.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are correct that that is a potential loophole, but they will be monitoring each and every transaction and I have no doubt that they'd consider that scenario an exploit since it's obvious a toilet or urinal would not be worth 3,000. I understand where your concern is coming from, but I can't understand why if this was the case they would not have just said they were doing away with the store category all together, because that is in effect what it would do. Besides, with those objects the money does *eventually* go back to EA in the form of restocking the store, doesn't it? In that case, it might be logical for them to delete the plethora of extra objects that were imported from the production cities to force those store ownes to restock from the catalog, but I don't even think they are going to do that. The only way we are going to get our answers is to chase down Greg, Lee, Luc or Sarah in game and ask them directly, or to conduct our own experiment over this next week. If this stuff is proven to be correct then it won't be hysteria, it will be legitimate worry over how this is going to affect the game, but right this minute we don't have any cold hard facts, just our interpretation of written words.......mostly from people who have a history of looking at every potential negatives, mixed in with a few people who are usually not negative just simply paying too much attention to theories of others.....the classic case of how negative outlooks can affect the people around them. ALL I am asking is that we *wait* a few days for real numbers to come in before going into panic mode, and I don't understand why that is so difficult
S
Shyanne1
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!!! Exactly. If they wanted us gone, the 1000 or so accounts (can't remember the number I read) wouldn't have stopped them. We're still here only because Luc came in and is trying to create something from 8 year old code, still operating on a shoestring budget *and* is having to put up with heaps of abuse for his troubles. As I said in another post a few days ago, even a 250k a year salary wouldn't be enough to make me put up with some of this, so I cannot understand how anybody can say that he isn't dedicated to this game and trying to make something of it. Some of the ways they are going about it seem a little [censored]-eyed at times, sure, but I have to believe at the center of it are only the best intentions for both the company he is employed by, and us......the problem is that sometimes serving the two interests collide and then a decision has to be made in which direction to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
2 things here.
1. Luc did not just show up at EA's door and beg for them to let him try and turn around a game with an 8 year old code (is that the code is 8 years old or that it was made by an 8 year old)
2. In another post you said that EA has been losing money and running in the red for a long time. Can you tell me where exactly you got that information? No company keeps a game where they lose profit for long and certainly not for as long as you claim they have.
3. 250k a year would certainly entice me to put up with a lot. What is he putting up with? If he doesn't want to then I will because I could use 250k a year. I'd even work 24/7 for that.
4. I have not read any post of yours that doesn't kiss up to EA. Are you possibly an employee?
5. oh, sorry I guess that was 5 things.
<blockquote><hr>
<blockquote><hr>
They didn't! Why is that? Could it be because they had a core of players who wouldn't leave?? Ya think?
[/ QUOTE ]
Uhm, if they turned off the sooper dooper Sims server you would have to leave. You couldn't connect.
I see little sims holding onto trees in protest. fading fading.... Fading....
[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!!! Exactly. If they wanted us gone, the 1000 or so accounts (can't remember the number I read) wouldn't have stopped them. We're still here only because Luc came in and is trying to create something from 8 year old code, still operating on a shoestring budget *and* is having to put up with heaps of abuse for his troubles. As I said in another post a few days ago, even a 250k a year salary wouldn't be enough to make me put up with some of this, so I cannot understand how anybody can say that he isn't dedicated to this game and trying to make something of it. Some of the ways they are going about it seem a little [censored]-eyed at times, sure, but I have to believe at the center of it are only the best intentions for both the company he is employed by, and us......the problem is that sometimes serving the two interests collide and then a decision has to be made in which direction to go.
[/ QUOTE ]
2 things here.
1. Luc did not just show up at EA's door and beg for them to let him try and turn around a game with an 8 year old code (is that the code is 8 years old or that it was made by an 8 year old)
2. In another post you said that EA has been losing money and running in the red for a long time. Can you tell me where exactly you got that information? No company keeps a game where they lose profit for long and certainly not for as long as you claim they have.
3. 250k a year would certainly entice me to put up with a lot. What is he putting up with? If he doesn't want to then I will because I could use 250k a year. I'd even work 24/7 for that.
4. I have not read any post of yours that doesn't kiss up to EA. Are you possibly an employee?
5. oh, sorry I guess that was 5 things.
G
Guest
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Exactly.
They want the money out of the game.
The sad thing is, they mentioned 3k. Does any of them PLAY the game? Are they clueless about how much their own objects payout?
3k is nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh my goodness u think they are going to lower the payouts agin.....Why do we have to be poor sim?
Exactly.
They want the money out of the game.
The sad thing is, they mentioned 3k. Does any of them PLAY the game? Are they clueless about how much their own objects payout?
3k is nothing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh my goodness u think they are going to lower the payouts agin.....Why do we have to be poor sim?
- Status