๐Ÿ’โ€โ™€๏ธ ๐‡๐ฒ๐ฉ๐ž๐ซ๐๐ž๐ญ (๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ), ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž๐š๐ฌ๐ž ๐ฏ๐จ๐ญ๐ž

Well Iโ€™m pretty sure thatโ€™s good newsโ€ฆ just a shame it appeared on reddit and the only place Iโ€™ve seen it mentioned on the official Eve Forums is in your postโ€ฆ so thanks for that.

CCP, wtf?

Regards,
Cypr3ss.

BTW he also wrote they are adding description how to do that to help site.

1 Like

You are weird as hell lol. Eve is first and foremost a PVP game. And thatโ€™s coming from a carebear (me, but i do enjoy PVP).

Also itโ€™s 100% gambling. Doesnโ€™t matter how many times you deny it with you weird replies. Itโ€™s gambling balos. If it wasnโ€™t gambling CCP wouldnโ€™t have added an option for people to block the feature. That in itโ€™s self is admission from CCP. But keep spouting your crap dude.

1 Like

ahahahahahahahaha โ€ฆ

Because your view is โ€œsuperiorโ€. What are your qualifications?

3 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Well PVP has set the course of the game since the first dayโ€ฆit only leads to less and less playersโ€ฆtime for a change dudeโ€ฆ

1 Like

Which, PVP and the destruction of assets is inherently a part of the game, to stimulate a need for an economy with multiple facets.

You understand fuckall about how the game works at its core and should refrain from opening your tiny mouth about it.

If you want a risk-free game, with quiet PVE, go play Elite in solomode, or X4 Foundations, or any other game like this, because deep down, your real problem is, PEOPLE, you just hate playing with people, in a game supposed to be all about it, people with both their negative and positive sides in one universe.

You simply negate anything that has to do with the globality of human beings in a game, because:

Youโ€™re a sociopath.
(border-line psychopath if we recall your post history on these forums).

3 Likes

Well I tried this feature and I liked it. But its 100% gambling with real money involved. So whatever your doing CCP I hope you understand what this can lead toโ€ฆ

1 Like

lol, do you even PLAY this game? Without PvP there would BE no PvE? Where do you think all those minerals/modules/ships/etc goโ€ฆto people running Trig sites or level 4 missions or whatever other PvE content there is? Maybe some, but not even close to the amount that gets piped to low/null sec for replacing ships lost inโ€ฆwait for itโ€ฆPvP.

This game is 1st and foremost based around PvP, and the fact you donโ€™t realize that makes me wonder what you are even doing here?

3 Likes

Agree :100:% โ€œdudeโ€โ€ฆ

Heโ€™s here looking for meaning in his sad and lonely life.

1 Like

If this game is 1st and foremost PvP, then there should be more player PvP action happening.

Seems to me more players are here to engage in PvE content than PvP which would explain why CCP keeps adding more PvE content.

Man, sometimes I wish I went into a different field of legal practice because this whole thing is fascinating. For everyone in here who says this โ€œ100%โ€ is or isnโ€™t gambling doesnโ€™t understand how nuanced the law can be. This is very much an โ€œit dependsโ€ type of situation. In my opinion (for what thatโ€™s worth, lol), the essential question is how the ability to convert real money to ISK via PLEX affects the analysis.

The issue isnโ€™t the real-world value of the items wonโ€“we know that because we know the controversy surrounding loot boxes. The in-game items you win from loot boxes canโ€™t be readily converted to cash. The issue is that real money is used to purchase the loot boxes in the first place. So far as Iโ€™m aware, thereโ€™s no requirement that the โ€œprizeโ€ has to have a real-world pecuniary value.

If there wasnโ€™t a mechanic that allowed conversion of cash to ISK, I donโ€™t think there would be any question that this would be fine.

Not to stoke the flames too much, but let me ask this hypothetical: if I buy a box of basketball cards, is that gambling?

Iโ€™ve reviewed (for previous discussions) the legal definitions of gambling, and the psychological/addiction definitions of gambling.

Pretty much all definitions boil down to โ€œplacing a consideration of some value at risk against a chance-based mechanism for the purpose of winning a prize of some valueโ€. The value does not need to be monetary. Almost all definitions include something like โ€œwith the potential to lose the original considerationโ€ or similar.

Sports cards packs (or Trading card games in general) do not usually qualify, because while there is some chance based mechanic in the selection of which cards you get, the pack itself always represents a guaranteed minimum value that is considered reasonable value for the price.

Many games (hope to) get around their โ€˜lootboxesโ€™ being declared โ€˜gamblingโ€™ by ensuring that each box gives some sort of value when unlocked, thereby falling into the โ€˜pack of trading cardsโ€™ definition of providing value for the money spent. Thus it becomes a purchase of rewards of varying value rather than a gamble.

From what I can tell, the HyperNet Relay meets the definitions of gambling, as you are placing a consideration of value against a chance-based gain of some value, and you either win the chance or lose your original consideration. I havenโ€™t run across any professional definitions of gambling that would not consider this gambling.

In that case, itโ€™s less a question of saying โ€œIs this gambling or isnโ€™t it?โ€ and more a question of โ€œWhat are the implications of this type of gambling scenario in this type of game?โ€

5 Likes

I totally agree, and this is exactly the argument I would make in support of that position. However, for sake of argument, from a practical standpoint, a lot of the people who purchase packs/boxes of cards are doing so because theyโ€™re hoping to pull something worth more than what they paid, which seems and awful lot like gambling as well. I guess the argument is that the company selling the cards doesnโ€™t have a hand in the secondary market for singles, which is true, but only in the most technical sense.

I also think this is absolutely correct; I donโ€™t think I framed the question properly.

Well, the definition I put in the above post is pretty much what they all โ€œboil down to in the minimum caseโ€. Many different add-ons and angles are added depending on the jurisdiction, the purpose, and whether it is a legal/regulatory definition or an addiction/behavioural one.

Having watched people buy/sell/trade Magic The Gathering and other game cards, it is clear that this is a form of risk-taking, chance-based-payoff behaviour that people are engaging in at least partly for the thrill of the โ€˜big winโ€™. So itโ€™s a behavioural match for some types of gambling/addiction definitions, but not for most legal/regulatory ones.

Hypernet Relay however, is a definite match for gambling from the legal/regulatory side, and less so for the behavioural/addiction side. It is still a match even for the behavioural side but just a very low-key one, as the mechanics so far do not involve most of the โ€œgambling addiction triggersโ€ that have been linked to problem gambling in studies.

That is right. Russian roulette is gambling with life for example. Someone could also bet not material things but act likeโ€ฆ kissing or undressing, like in spin the bottle.

People bet anything.

Says the one that forces his playstyle onto othersโ€ฆ

nopeโ€ฆno real money win opportunity involved so no gambling by lawโ€ฆ