EVE General Discussion

I actually think a better system would not be an SP cap, but simply make the trial accounts limitation systems apply to any new "free" accounts. That way, a free account is stuck flying t1 cruisers and below; they can't even have haulers or mining barges. That way, they can have fun (let it never be said that a huge frigate fleet isn't a sight to behold), botters can't spam f2p accounts in barges, and you get an influx of people who won't be turned off by the fact that 21 days isn't enough time to train all the things you want to try.

Of course, that just allows the free player to grind their way to a PLEX as well, though they'll have to go through the market. Of course, it's hard to grind ~400m with just cruisers and frigates, but it's doable after a very long time. It also allows corporations to "invest" in free players that they see as promising. That f2p noob who just killed a Harb solo in his Rifter? Reward him with a PLEX and let him fly with your Cane fleets or whatever.

Of course, I could also be completely wrong.

If I go down the pub and someone buys me a pint because I'm awesome, is the beer free?

It includes everything you need to participate, and excludes the things that make you able to experience the mid-to-high end of content.

Much like a lvl 20 cap in WoW.

So how do they retain those players? Especially considering how, unlike EVE, the content in WoW is 100% static. Once you've ridden all the rides in the themepark, that's it — you've ridden all the rides. EVE doesn't have any rides, and even given the limit to sub-BC T1 ships, the things you do do not end. The answer is: you don't retain them, or, rather, their retention isn't important.

The idea is not to have the F2P:ers stick around — it's to either convert them to payers or to have them as “filling” to make the world more lively, which in turn keeps the payers around. Same thing here: the limitations on trials don't really matter because the idea is to convert them into payers who gain access to all the other goodies.
Again: why?
Source? Or, more importantly, source that this is due to a lack of F2P rather than — what everyone else thinks — a lack of active development?

I answered both the questions in the few words immediately following your selected quotes.

1) Increasing market competition that does not require a sub. Example; World of Tanks. You can play indefinitely without paying a penny but paying will accelerate your advancement. This is a F2P PVP game many consider to have stolen players from EVE. EVE by comparison simply stops once your trial is up.

2) I'm offering opinion, not scientific fact. I also said that I consider EVE's 'recent' slow development to be a major issue with the state of the game. I am simply suggesting that market competition might also be a factor, one I think will only increase. If I can try WoT for free and keep playing, I'm less likely to look into that other game which demands my credit card number every month.

EDIT- Here is an argument that player retention is down if you want it. The case made suggests that its an increasing trend going back well before Incarna release, suggesting that Incursion temprorarily boosted active player numbers but failed to hold them long term, more so than previous expansions.

While in theory it sounds good, I don't think this is a good idea. I'm not even a spy / scammer / griefer / thief, and I can already think of many ways I could abuse that proposed system for those purposes. I can't even imagine what underhanded players could come up with if they tried.

You didn't so much answer them as present assumptions of a route to be taken.
…and my question is: is it really stealing players or is EVE just losing players due to neglect? Is it really competition? Yes, it's a PvP game but does it actually compete with what EVE offers?

At any rate, so what? Why does that mean that EVE needs to go F2P as well? Will the game actually benefit from it? Can it even make use of it? Those kinds of decisions tend to be very integral to the design of the gameplay itself, so the question remains: does the game actually benefit from that kind of rejiggering or will it just break things even further and make people leave?
Then maybe claims such as “player retention is down” are a bit out of place? And you certainly can't base an argument for a change on this kind of assumption…
No, it shows player activity is down. It does not present any case for (or against) retention or any reasoning behind it. It does not provide any information about player influx or how long they stick around — only that people are not playing any more.

But again, more importantly, it doesn't tell us anything about how F2P would in any way be a problem (as in increased competition) or a solution (as in, let's do the same). Instead, the curves rather show a different thing: the plateauing, and eventual decline, happened right about the time CCP stopped focusing on EVE…

The solution to that thorny problem does not lie in changing the business model to match that of the (supposed) competition — the solution lies in focusing on EVE. In fact, considering how much of EVE's success comes from not doing what the (supposed) competition does, one might even argue that doing so now would be extra detrimental.

I know someone who left EVE for WoT because it offered the small scale PVP he used to play EVE for but without a sub. Was it the only factor? Of course not. But it was a major point in his reasoning.




If a player stops logging in they will sooner or later cancel their sub as well. And an MMO with an inactive player base is increasingly less fun for those who are still playing, which will only result in further decline. If players stop playing your game then I would say that means you are not 'retaining' them. A healthy MMO needs players to log in, not just pay their subs. If they don't it will soon be an unhealthy MMO.

A point I'd like to make for you here, I am not arguing that CCP should implement this system, or even that I want EVE to be F2P. I've paying my sub(s) for 7 years straight without a break, this thread is not a statement that I'm going to suddenly stop doing that. What I am interested in here is the possibilities of how EVE can stay competitive in attracting fresh blood in future, given that the industry is moving away from subs atm. You need people to try the game in the first place, and I think that EVE will be facing stiffer competition than in the past doing that.

WE DO NOT WANT F2P THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

In all seriousness, F2P would decrease the quality of this game in every way. The focus should be on making the game better, not more micro transactions.

A F2P model that might work for Eve is everything being free, but the training speed being halved. Then you can play to train at the speed we do now, making sure that there is no change for paying customers, but people who are low on money can still play the game. Along with this, CCP could sell vanity items like ship skins and clothing in the nex store.
This is working pretty well for global agenda, their revenue is higher than it has ever been, and a lot of new players have joined.

Split a plex into 100mill isk, 800 aurum or a week of sub

-when unsubbed, all chars have a clone at their station of birth
-unsubbed chars can only travel in POD and not to lowsec
-no viewing or modifying of market orders
-no corp management
-can view industry but not modify
-no training
-chat in channels but not invite or create
-access to all new incarna games by paying with aurum (woohoo!)
-etc.

All tiral chars that are not subbed are deleted after a period of inactivity (3 months?)

In this way, people could basically exist and socialise in EVE but game would be meh!

EDIT - agree with comment above now I've read them all.