These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A 150 hour subscription model?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Yokai Mitsuhide
Doomheim
#21 - 2012-08-27 16:27:48 UTC
Bad idea is bad.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#22 - 2012-08-27 16:31:53 UTC
Cristl wrote:
pause the timer when in station


That makes it slightly more palatable but I still think it will punish too many people who don't deserve to be punished.

Oh god.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#23 - 2012-08-27 16:35:00 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Cristl wrote:
pause the timer when in station


That makes it slightly more palatable but I still think it will punish too many people who don't deserve to be punished.


It still completely screws people who live in POSs
Cristl
#24 - 2012-08-27 16:37:54 UTC
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
Bad idea is bad.


Fantastic. It would be great if you could elaborate just a tiny bit on that mate.

Many people seem to think that this is an alternate plan and that I'm suggesting people would subscribe to either 30 days or 150 hours. That's not what Im saying at all! Please understand that if you are active (out of station, earning ISK) for less than 150 hours a month then this would have no effect on you at all. And 150 hours is frikken yonks!
Cristl
#25 - 2012-08-27 16:43:59 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
It still completely screws people who live in POSs


This is where my greatest sympathies lie, but it would be pretty easy to code when people are in non-isk-making locations and just pause the timer in those cases.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-08-27 16:46:24 UTC
Cristl wrote:
150 hours is frikken yonks!


6 days & 6 hours to be exact. So not really yonks.


This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-08-27 16:48:21 UTC
Cristl wrote:
I hope this isn't taken as a troll post because I wrote it in all seriousness.


No, it's just a terrible idea & every one is telling you how horrible it is.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Fatbottom Girl
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-08-27 16:49:59 UTC
How did I know this would be related to isk/hr?

You guys are like hamsters on a treadmill. Actually you're more like sheep.

SHEEP! X
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#29 - 2012-08-27 16:55:18 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Cristl wrote:
150 hours is frikken yonks!


6 days & 6 hours to be exact. So not really yonks.




Bah, I can get 150 hours of gameplay played in a weekend!

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Arec Bardwin
#30 - 2012-08-27 16:57:48 UTC
I propose more random 'socket closed' functionality to combat AFK behavior.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#31 - 2012-08-27 17:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Thor Kerrigan
This only works if everything affected by your account turns off if you use hourly fee. In essence, I pay for my skill training while AFK and thus, am playing 24/7.

Could be a option for those having maxed most skills and strictly pvp'ing when online since the following must be turned off:
-skill training when not online
-any market transactions linked to the account (buy/sell/contracts)
-any passive industrial tasks (manufacturing, research, PI, etc.)
-datacores
-etc, etc.

This would become advantageous only for very specific accounts and might possibly be the end-game for those who have played this game for a long time. A sort of "retirement" plan, if you will...

EDIT:
To those saying this would reduce CCP's income - what about the players who don't play EVE strictly because of the subscription model? What little they might lose from the low percentage of accounts which would actually benefit from this, they would gain much more imo in new players interested by the suggested subscription plan.
Probebly Afk Cloaking
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-08-27 17:14:30 UTC
bad idea to just bother little lonesome me

stop pissing on my profession

i do valuable work for the eve community

just move system if i bother you, not like ill follow i'm afk anyway

i pay for 30 day's so 23,5/7

put a sock in your idea and move on


P.A.C.

ps. afk cloaking working as intended
Cristl
#33 - 2012-08-27 17:15:55 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:

And everyone would still pick the 30 day option, so...

No.

No, it would not introduce a soft-limit on anything, as people would still pick the 30 day option for skill training. It would also be pretty awful if you were in the middle of a fun fight & all of a sudden your gametime expired. This is easily one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.


Aw. Mallak, please try to get your head around this. It's not a choice that the user picks mate, and yes, 150 hours *is* yonks. It wasn't long ago that France decided to abolish the 35 hour work week. That's about 150 hours per month mate. That's WORK: you know, the time that isn't consumed by sleeping, eating, a bit of telly and some 'hunt the banana'. Trust me, 150 hours on a video game would be fine for everyone (that wasn't RMTing).
Tiberius StarGazer
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-08-27 17:20:17 UTC
Be great for me as a trader, log on, make my trades, log off, only need 30 min a day, and hey presto I get 300 days for the price off the subcription.

Never mind CCP, you dont need the other 10 months I would have ordinarily have paid for as I now don't see the need to maximise my time in game.

As model for a business... not ideal to ensure a regular cashflow. Which ultimately, CCP will be relying on the regular monthly money paid to ensure ongoing income.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#35 - 2012-08-27 17:31:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Roll Sizzle Beef
its still going backwards though.
Unlimited month to only so many hours for the same price is horrible marketing.

Players can take individual mechanic nerfs, as long as its for the greater good. Yet putting a limit on the whole game that wasn't there before (even if just parts such as site rooms) is maddening. Would have another riot.

Its easier in terms of PR and function to modify truly broken mechanics if they actually feel that they are broken, such as afk cloaking.

Limiting the game as a whole, even if the majority wouldn't use up the time is still taking away what they once had the option in doing. This isn't taking away a function like dual afterburners, this is subscription and effects everything despite "timers off in specific zones".

Tiberius StarGazer wrote:
Be great for me as a trader, log on, make my trades, log off, only need 30 min a day, and hey presto I get 300 days for the price off the subcription.


no, she wants 150 hours or a month, which ever comes first. She wants to limit game time as a whole to try and effect botters and afk cloaks. not you getting more time for cheaper.
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#36 - 2012-08-27 17:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
30 days or 150 hours means that people who play more than 150 hours in a month would pay more to play EVE.

This guy only logs out when the server goes down each morning. He sits in a station, manufacturing and updating market orders. It's easier to stay logged in and check orders every couple hours or so than it is to log in every time I want to check my orders. Not to mention I can check my orders anywhere I have wifi thanks to remote desktop.

Auto logging out isn't necessary either. Automatically logging off afk players only effects market guys, manufacturers, and afk cloaked ships. The first two have zero impact on anyone, and the third is best fixed by removing cloaked ships from the local list.

The OP's idea just looks like a poorly thought out idea to prevent afk cloaked ships in a system.

PS, bots won't register as afk, and would only be effected by the 150 hour limit. ****** idea to discourage bottling as it would also discourage anyone that plays often to not play as much so that they only reach the 30 day limit. EVE would be better off with mechanics that encourage you to log in more, for longer, than it would the opposite.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#37 - 2012-08-27 17:50:20 UTC
The OP seems to have developed an idea of how much gaming is acceptable for other people. If they want to play more then the OPs acceptable five hour a day maximum they shall be punished by paying more money. I am puzzled by the fact that the OP feels that CCP wishes to do anything to decrease the energy its obsessive players put into it.

OP, I wonder what you do with your time. Grind and log? For some their game of Eve has little relation to red crosses or the ships they spin.

Is this a stealth trader buff or a stealth FW nerf? I am undecided.

Also, its nice that France feels 35 hours a week is to much. My minimum is 42 per week and I am fortunate when I can keep it that low. It is also arrogant of you to assume everyone has the same life interests that you do and define as normal. I do not watch television and do not count any of it into my personal time.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.
Yokai Mitsuhide
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-08-27 17:56:14 UTC
Cristl wrote:
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
Bad idea is bad.


Fantastic. It would be great if you could elaborate just a tiny bit on that mate.



no point, everyone else has pretty much brought up the issues with the idea.
I think it should stay the way it is currently. There is nothing wrong with it, no need to change it.
Thrym Garsk
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-08-27 18:05:38 UTC
Cristl wrote:
I hope this isn't taken as a troll post because I wrote it in all seriousness. Quite a few people seem to have gotten the wrong end though, so some clarification:

[/i]


It might as well be a troll post, that's how terrible the idea is. Fortunately no game company would ever really be stupid enough to do it.

You don't make game mechanic fixes by screwing with your subscription model. You make game mechanic fixes by screwing with game mechanics.

On top of this, the game is old. You most assuredly don't take the oldest full blown subscription model game and change the subscription to potentially be worth LESS than it has been in the past---products go down in price as they become obsolete, not up.
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#40 - 2012-08-27 18:07:18 UTC
Since it's already covered why this 'idea' is bad, I ilke to advice the OP to biomass him/ her/ it self.

Just login one more time, go to the screen where you can select the character then find the tiny skull and click it.
Continue pressing yes, and save us from your bad, bad idea's in the future.

With love and regards,

/Me. P