Player Features and Ideas Discussion

YOU might not see the mining frigs now go free to play and you will see one paid orca and 200 gold farming f2p accounts in ventures

Dear OP,

I'm not a like whore, but I will point out that you have one like. And that sole like I don't even know if it came to you in this thread. Therefore it seems that you have discovered that EVE is not a game to follow the latest bad trends in the market. It is a game that has had a good design and longevity, and which should not be fadized. Your idea is going nowhere here, and rightly so.

Sincerely,

Deac

I have re-written the idea in the first post.

#1 T2 ships require level 5 of the appropriate handling skill and a subsequent tech 2 ship handling skill. T2 skills are restricted so restricting the ship would be unnecessary.

#2 One way of getting CCP interested in an idea and looking at it is to follow KISS. Keep It, and take your pick between Stupidly Simple and Simple, Stupid. Asking them to rebalance one ship (and making it T2 and subsequently giving it another bonus or two along with other pertinent stat increases would call for a round of rebalancing on it) and then create a whole new ship to fill a hole you just suggested they make with said rebalanced ship doesn't necessarily follow KISS.

#3 The biggest flaw with the venture from a free to play model is the size of the ore hold. All things considered reducing it to 1k or 1.5k would be much more agreeable than what you suggested.



No. If "free" accounts are implemented and they subsequently replace "trial" accounts they need to be able to train skills and engage in industry as part of the new player/tutorial process. Preventing free accounts from training skills that are currently restricted from trial accounts and limiting the number of concurrent S&I jobs a trial/free account can place would be much more acceptable than outright removing them altogether.



Not going to work. You can spoof IP addresses. Furthermore you can also spoof MAC addresses. Combine said spoofing with multiple virtual/physical machines and/or one or more VPNs and these restrictions are pretty meaningless to anyone even halfway dedicated to multi-boxing with free accounts.



No. Blitzing L3 missions with bots using full gang link bonuses would still be viable. Also, regarding your following isk cap I don't see that it would affect L3 blitzbots as much as you might hope as it doesn't prevent them from getting loot/salvage/LP. Furthermore it only covers pirate bounties and not agent rewards/bonuses. Furthermore allowing full defensive gang boosts on mining bots just makes them that (tiny bit) much harder to kill by players who actively pursue botters.

Finally the maximum mining yield a venture can achieve is 858m3/minute with T2 mining lasers and a hair over 1km3 with modulated miners and T2 crystals. In comparison the top named mining lasers would only achieve a yield of 700m3/minute. This isn't necessarily bad given that moas would be able to mine more than a venture; it would be 858m3/minute on the venture to 935m3/minute on the moa, and the moa can manage enough cargo space to handle 2/3 of that amount so staggering the beams would make it plausible to mine that way.

On a secondary note consider this. If you make the venture too unattractive botters can, and will, switch to other ships, and ships like the moa would require that any botting software make significantly more actions per minute than what would be needed with a venture which in turn would increase the per ship server load botting generates. Just a thought. Oh, yes, and moas would be harder to gank for anti-botter players than ventures would be with potentially 24.8k EHP to the venture's 4.4k with a buffer build.

OP's rewrite of the first post sounds like an almost completely crippled version of the game. I believe the understanding that EVE simply cannot be made tiered F2P/P2P is creeping into OP's head. The only way you could make any part of EVE F2P is if you make the whole thing F2P and that's not something that can even be discussed.

Personaly I think it should be possible to enter the game unpaid and with restrictions in place you could not do almost anything.

I mean what harm would it do to the game?
All I can see is an easier way to get to the market and buy a plex or if I'm for somereason broke at the time when the subscription ends I could still talk with my friends and fly around until I have the isks to get a plex for that account or continue my subcription.

In truth, I'm not as happy with the re-write as I (still) am with the original. On the other hand, if the most vocal minority of the community hates an idea so much, I doubt it will get considered.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that there is a good F2P solution for Eve, which fulfills my stated goals. My first idea was simple and clean, but enough people found enough problems that it won't be viable without additional changes. The second idea just isn't as good. It builds directly on the first idea, but only really addressing the feedback from this thread.

I still think the first idea is doable, and better. I think a real F2P system would open the floodgates for new players to join Eve, and if it is well designed, a good F2P system pushes players to pay up when they're hooked.

I obviously didn't hit it perfect with either idea, but maybe they'll use the idea to come up with something better, that works.

But you need to consider that in the context of LoTR's sub graph diving harder than an Italian footballer.

On the other hand, EVE is seeing excellent YoY subscriber and revenue growth (around 10% IIRC). CCP have every financial incentive to keep their current subscription + PLEX hybrid model, which has been extremely successful. It's very difficult to imagine a F2P scenario that would make CCP more revenue than the current PLEX system does.

Given the existing playerbase's highly predictable reaction to introducing a cash shop capable of generating enough revenue to make up for the lost revenue from unpaid accounts, CCP would have to be either high on CIA-grade hallucinogens or forced at gunpoint to go F2P at this stage.

Incidentally, your proposal would be an open door to all kinds of botting and alt-abuse exploits.

No, and here's why:

1- You will get a lot more ISK farmers in game. They will squeeze out every last bit of isk in any profitable activity ingame and make the game exceptionally tedious and boring for those that just want to have fun.

2- I don't see any benefits for CCP, just some players taking up system resources. Note that when you are paying for a plex ingame someone else has already paid 15$ dollars to ccp for it.

Yeah, wasnt even anything comfirmed, it was an idea of MT that could maybe possibly someday be in the aurum store that wasnt clothes and might maybe possible effect gameplay.

backlash nearly cost CCP the business.