These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

What If CCP Has The Wrong Idea?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tarvos Telesto
Blood Fanatics
#21 - 2013-01-19 16:47:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarvos Telesto
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:
lets see:

worried about company income? check

worried about sub numbers? check


i smell an ex-wow player... anyone else?


Would you say this when you see 2000 online, and CCP close to bankrupt? probably yes, because some people are against new people in game or new ideas, some people are afraid from gaming evolve progres , some people want eve offline.

EvE isn't game, its style of living.
Whitehound
#22 - 2013-01-19 16:49:15 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Ok. One example. CCP seems to think that High Sec ganking is a necessary part of the game.

Necessary for what?

You first need to distinguish between the different ganks and then see if the good outweighs the bad.

Not all ganks are bad. Those for profit are reasonable and you should be able to see your mistake and learn from it. This can be fun for both.

Other ganks only spoil the game for others and are anti-social and depressing (it is typically the case when the gankers retreat to a logic of "my loss is smaller than yours").Those are not good for an MMO and CCP has been changing the game to reduce these.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Flakey Foont
#23 - 2013-01-19 16:52:00 UTC
I hope they don't make the game "more accessible to the masses." I for one like being in an environment where dumb people will fail as they should be allowed to do in RL.

Justin Beiber sold the most songs last year. Is he a great artist? C'mon, a bunch of Verizon/Best Buy clerks spouting business plans is laughable.

Example from post above: " some people are afraid from gaming evolve progres..."
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2013-01-19 16:52:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Minus a mac address I guess.
…are not transmitted across devices (but could conceivably be reported by the client); are not unique; and do not indicate a single person using the computer in question.
Nicor Syke'Nexen
#25 - 2013-01-19 16:52:46 UTC
Tarvos Telesto wrote:
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:
lets see:

worried about company income? check

worried about sub numbers? check


i smell an ex-wow player... anyone else?


Would you say this when you see 2000 online, and CCP close to bankrupt? probably yes, because some people are against new people in game or new ideas, some people are afraid from gaming evolve progres , some people want eve offline.


but neither are anywhere near happening.

relax, game is fine.

i'd even go so far as to say the game is perfect, compared to any other MMO.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#26 - 2013-01-19 16:56:40 UTC
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts. That report should be easily accomplished via one line of SQL, and I'm sure it's already being run.

/Imma' gonna' go out on a limb, and bet right now that number is significantly less than 450K.




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-01-19 16:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Not Politically Correct
I didn't mean the number of individual players. I meant the number of paid accounts. All they have to do is count money once a month to figure that out. Ooops. Forgot about PLEXes.

I never said they have a game that no one wants to play. I did say that there are parts of it I like. What I'm asking is if they are ignoring ways to make it better.

I'm not an elitist. I don't feel like a god because I have been able to hang on for three years. I would enjoy having more people in the game. So would CCP. They aren't going to get them unless they make some changes.

What percentage of trial accounts turn into subscribers? Why is that?

One of my problems with a lot of this is that this is the only on-line game I've ever played.

Another problem is that I spent several years as a contract programmer. First rule is give the client what they ask for as long as it is possible to do that efficiently and profitably.

CCP doesn't seem to care about that at all.

Edit: BTW, that comment about Hi Sec ganking being necessary to keep the economy stable is pure hogwash.
Nicor Syke'Nexen
#28 - 2013-01-19 17:00:03 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts. That report should be easily accomplished via one line of SQL, and I'm sure it's already being run.

/Imma' gonna' go out on a limb, and bet right now that number is significantly less than 450K.






but why does it matter?

there's over 50k on right now, and over 25k at the lowest/slowest time of day.

isn't that good enough?

why do people get hung up on the number of subs so much?
Ammzi
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#29 - 2013-01-19 17:00:40 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Ok. One example. CCP seems to think that High Sec ganking is a necessary part of the game.

Necessary for what?


Oh, you're one of those people.
*searches repository for answers*

Here we go:
Go back to WOW.
This is not Hello Kitty online
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2013-01-19 17:02:25 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Minus a mac address I guess.
…are not transmitted across devices (but could conceivably be reported by the client); are not unique; and do not indicate a single person using the computer in question.



They identify a connection, which the server can record. That, unlike ips, are not dynamic.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#31 - 2013-01-19 17:06:54 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts.
You mean the metric they do reveal with some consistency?

Not Politically Correct wrote:
I didn't mean the number of individual players. I meant the number of paid accounts. All they have to do is count money once a month to figure that out. Ooops. Forgot about PLEXes.
PLEXes make no difference in that count (and counting the money would be inaccurate anyway since there is no single fix cost for an account).

Mrk Paradox wrote:
They identify a connection, which the server can record. That, unlike ips, are not dynamic.
…but which doesn't tell you anything since, again, it's not unique or tied to a single person in any way. If you're saying that you want the client to start mapping its close-by network, I'm sure there is a nice collection of privacy laws that would classify EVE as illegal spyware at that point…
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#32 - 2013-01-19 17:07:15 UTC
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:


but why does it matter?

there's over 50k on right now, and over 25k at the lowest/slowest time of day.

isn't that good enough?


You are confusing the # of players connected to the server with the total number of active (i.e. paid somehow) accounts.

players ≠ accounts



☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2013-01-19 17:11:52 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts.
You mean the metric they do reveal with some consistency?

Not Politically Correct wrote:
I didn't mean the number of individual players. I meant the number of paid accounts. All they have to do is count money once a month to figure that out. Ooops. Forgot about PLEXes.
PLEXes make no difference in that count (and counting the money would be inaccurate anyway since there is no single fix cost for an account).

Mrk Paradox wrote:
They identify a connection, which the server can record. That, unlike ips, are not dynamic.
…but which doesn't tell you anything since, again, it's not unique or tied to a single person in any way. If you're saying that you want the client to start mapping its close-by network, I'm sure there is a nice collection of privacy laws that would classify EVE as illegal spyware at that point…



Sure it does. If you came to my home and used my wifi, I'd know who you were. I wouldn't know your name per se, but I'd know who you were in relation to the conenction on my network. I'd also be able to keep a record of that and if you came over to my house again with a different device, I could track that as well.

We aren't talking about privacy laws here, we are talking about account connections. I would then be able to systematically disable or block, those mac addresses from using my network.

Sure you could start an anonymous alt account and log back in, but if it became related to a previously used account (I'm sure there are more distinguisable means to link accounts from users on ccp's servers) that one would get banned as well.

This isn't a matter of discussion anyways, because we are all apparently talking about business models and players versus ccp. I do not know how their servers are coded, but administratively, you are not anonymous.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#34 - 2013-01-19 17:13:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts.
You mean the metric they do reveal with some consistency?

Not Politically Correct wrote:
I didn't mean the number of individual players. I meant the number of paid accounts. All they have to do is count money once a month to figure that out. Ooops. Forgot about PLEXes.
PLEXes make no difference in that count (and counting the money would be inaccurate anyway since there is no single fix cost for an account).

Mrk Paradox wrote:
They identify a connection, which the server can record. That, unlike ips, are not dynamic.
…but which doesn't tell you anything since, again, it's not unique or tied to a single person in any way. If you're saying that you want the client to start mapping its close-by network, I'm sure there is a nice collection of privacy laws that would classify EVE as illegal spyware at that point…



Ok. Let me put it this way. Is there any way for US to find out how many active, non-trial, accounts there actually are?
Nicor Syke'Nexen
#35 - 2013-01-19 17:13:34 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:


but why does it matter?

there's over 50k on right now, and over 25k at the lowest/slowest time of day.

isn't that good enough?


You are confusing the # of players connected to the server with the total number of active (i.e. paid somehow) accounts.

players ≠ accounts





no.

what i'm saying is:

there's still tons of people that play the game, so the number of active accounts is irrelevant to us, the common player.

when the max number of concurrent daily logins drops to the 40-45k range, then maybe it's time for concern.
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#36 - 2013-01-19 17:14:51 UTC
Nicor Syke'Nexen wrote:


when the max number of concurrent daily logins drops to the 40-45k range, then maybe it's time for concern.



Then you must have been concerned the past year. That's what it has been. Sigh.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2013-01-19 17:15:14 UTC
Not Politically Correct wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts.
You mean the metric they do reveal with some consistency?

Not Politically Correct wrote:
I didn't mean the number of individual players. I meant the number of paid accounts. All they have to do is count money once a month to figure that out. Ooops. Forgot about PLEXes.
PLEXes make no difference in that count (and counting the money would be inaccurate anyway since there is no single fix cost for an account).

Mrk Paradox wrote:
They identify a connection, which the server can record. That, unlike ips, are not dynamic.
…but which doesn't tell you anything since, again, it's not unique or tied to a single person in any way. If you're saying that you want the client to start mapping its close-by network, I'm sure there is a nice collection of privacy laws that would classify EVE as illegal spyware at that point…



Ok. Let me put it this way. Is there any way for US to find out how many active, non-trial, accounts there actually are?



Not publicly I'm sure. Only accounts actively logged in.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Not Politically Correct
Doomheim
#38 - 2013-01-19 17:19:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Not Politically Correct
Murk Paradox wrote:


Not publicly I'm sure. Only accounts actively logged in.


Doesn't that kind of make you wonder? If I were providing a service like this, for pay, I would want to know what that number was on an hourly basis, and would base business decisions on it.
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
#39 - 2013-01-19 17:21:07 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Doc Fury wrote:
I've got a 'metric' I'd like to see CCP reveal that does not suffer from any inaccuracies or abstract difficulty whatsoever, and that's the number of accounts that are presently active, minus trial accounts.
You mean the metric they do reveal with some consistency?



Would that be the 450K "subscriber" number being currently bandied-about by CCP?

Otherwise, please direct me to the material. I don't think I've seen anything where they disclose exactly how the number of "subscribers" is determined (or defined) but I obviously cannot see or read everything that might be available. If CCP's definition of a "subscriber" is in fact the same as what I described, that would be news to me, and awesome for them.




☼

There's a million angry citizens looking down their tubes..at me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#40 - 2013-01-19 17:22:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Sure it does. If you came to my home and used my wifi, I'd know who you were.
…because you can access the wifi access point I used to connect to the internet. CCP can't, so they have no idea.

Quote:
We aren't talking about privacy laws here, we are talking about account connections.
We are talking privacy laws because the only way for that MAC to be useful would be if the client recorded the MAC of the NIC it uses to connect to the server, and tried to map out the overall network around it so that it can be uniquely identified separately from other NICs that might share the same MAC. Only then could it report back to CCP its identity. That kind of active crawling and mapping out of your private LAN for the purpose of identifying you would quite quickly bash its heads against laws against exactly that kind of thing.

Not Politically Correct wrote:
Ok. Let me put it this way. Is there any way for US to find out how many active, non-trial, accounts there actually are?
Yes. Ask CCP. They publish that number every now and then. That is exactly what their “active subscriber” numbers have always counted, at least as far back as the QENs and — as far as I know — long before that as well… because its' the only subscriber number that actually matters to anyone.