These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Make eve free to play!

First post
Author
Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-06-17 13:27:51 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Why would they **** off their existing customers merely to cater to purely theoretical ones? That would be suicide.



LOL come on DUDE!

This is ccp, they do this atleast twice every 3 months man.

Lol Seriously i know you know that is exactly what they have been doing for quite awhile lately MAN!!
Anthar Thebess
#62 - 2015-06-17 13:28:12 UTC
Giaus Felix wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Nes store?! Roll
NES Store isn't pay to win, everything in there is strictly cosmetic or service orientated and offers no ingame advantage to a single character.

For example multiple character training offers no ingame advantage because it is only possible to log on one character per account.


I know this.
The only thing i got form there is thanathos skin - well i was drunk Lol
5 minutes later i undocked and , omg this skin is so dark, and in the systems i live you almost don't see the difference.

My point is that in order for NES to be profitable source of income - it needs something viable - for people to actually spend cash on it.

Skins are fun, but at some point people will be bored, oh hey next pink ship.
From my perspective , CCP needs to change charging for every (new) thing in plexes.

Character transfers
New 'underwear' from NES
New Skins
Alliance tournament
etc

This escalates cost of plex to very high levels - and we are not EVE China where booting is not prohibited.
Cost of alt accounts raise every day ( plex speculation helps this ).

Captain Awkward
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2015-06-17 13:28:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Awkward
Elenahina wrote:
Captain Awkward wrote:
In my opinion, CCP does not even want more players into the game atm.


Players: Here CCP take our money.
CCP: Nah, we're good. Thanks though.

Seriously? That's the kind of scenario you're envisioning?

Roll

Please bother to read the rest of my post to see why I made that statement.

Its not like CCP has closed the game for new subscriptions, but they are also not doing a great job at advertising their game to potential new players. At least it seems that way to me.

I only took notice of EvE after Asakai when I read about the battle in a regular news site. I have bin subed ever since with one and later two accounts. Had it not bin for that player driven "advertisement by accident" I would probably still be jumping circles in a WoW auction house instead of playing this awesome internet spaceship game and never wanting to return to WoW ever again.
Valkin Mordirc
#64 - 2015-06-17 13:30:48 UTC
No for F2P because F2P is a very slippery slope to P2W


I don't want to pay for increased skill timers. I don't want to pay cash for Faction Mods.

If this became a thing I would very passionantly protest it tell it happened then quit.


So. Sorry but.

**** your idea. **** Free to play, and **** you.

=D
#DeleteTheWeak
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#65 - 2015-06-17 14:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Aminari Talar
Free to play has nothing to do with pay to win. This is a magical thing in your head like unicorns and faries with pixie dust (Well there use to be an alliance we called "pixies" so they are "kinda real").

CCP Would be totally fine if their itemshop had

- Plex
- Ships
- New Models
- Clothing
- Alliance space station bling (new models)
- Corporation Space station bling (new models)
- Pos Bling
- Effect bling (Weapons, engines, etc)


These things coupled with a subscription plan that did something like "You can now train two skills at a time on the same single toon per an account" would allow plex to still be valid, and make training awesome.

the subscription part is up for grabs because of the long list of things you can do with it, like "accelerated training rates" similar to that which new players get.

In short, I find anything that is "Time based" or "item shop based" are also totally acceptable (iv seen a few situations where time based systems in RTS are broken) and then you have league of legends which has direct combat related purchases effecting game play, not "pay to win". It is all about how you design it.
Quote:

You players should advocate freely and fairly for this system. Just because you have been burnt in the past, does not mean you have WILL be burnt here with an item shop... AND IT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND UNFAIR OF YOU TO SAY THAT CCP HAS THIS INTENTION
Ellegos1
State War Academy
Caldari State
#66 - 2015-06-17 14:08:02 UTC
This thread gave me cancer.

Also, I think the horse is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Remember kids, say no to.... *whispers* free to play
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#67 - 2015-06-17 14:18:24 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Free to play has nothing to do with pay to win. This is a magical thing in your head like unicorns and faries with pixie dust (Well there use to be an alliance we called "pixies" so they are "kinda real").

CCP Would be totally fine if their itemshop had

- Plex
- Ships
- New Models
- Clothing
- Alliance space station bling (new models)
- Corporation Space station bling (new models)
- Pos Bling
- Effect bling (Weapons, engines, etc)


These things coupled with a subscription plan that did something like "You can now train two skills at a time on the same single toon per an account" would allow plex to still be valid, and make training awesome.

the subscription part is up for grabs because of the long list of things you can do with it, like "accelerated training rates" similar to that which new players get.

In short, I find anything that is "Time based" or "item shop based" are also totally acceptable (iv seen a few situations where time based systems in RTS are broken) and then you have league of legends which has direct combat related purchases effecting game play, not "pay to win". It is all about how you design it.
Quote:

You players should advocate freely and fairly for this system. Just because you have been burnt in the past, does not mean you have WILL be burnt here with an item shop... AND IT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND UNFAIR OF YOU TO SAY THAT CCP HAS THIS INTENTION


Ships in cashshop?

Hell no!
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#68 - 2015-06-17 14:20:12 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Free to play has nothing to do with pay to win.


Except for how they very often go hand in hand. Take your nonsense somewhere else.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#69 - 2015-06-17 14:20:58 UTC
Actually, There is nothing wrong with it at all. It works perfectly fine in many other games (like league of legends).

If you can provide an example where one hero in league massively destroys all other hero's because its only "Bought" with "real money" i will give up this point and remove it from the list.

other wise its all based on your "experience" getting repeatedly "raped" by someone in some "pay to win game".
Lan Wang
Princess Aiko Hold My Hand
Safety. Net
#70 - 2015-06-17 14:22:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Lan Wang
Aminari Talar wrote:
Free to play has nothing to do with pay to win. This is a magical thing in your head like unicorns and faries with pixie dust (Well there use to be an alliance we called "pixies" so they are "kinda real").

CCP Would be totally fine if their itemshop had

- Plex
- Ships
- New Models
- Clothing
- Alliance space station bling (new models)
- Corporation Space station bling (new models)
- Pos Bling
- Effect bling (Weapons, engines, etc)


These things coupled with a subscription plan that did something like "You can now train two skills at a time on the same single toon per an account" would allow plex to still be valid, and make training awesome.

the subscription part is up for grabs because of the long list of things you can do with it, like "accelerated training rates" similar to that which new players get.

In short, I find anything that is "Time based" or "item shop based" are also totally acceptable (iv seen a few situations where time based systems in RTS are broken) and then you have league of legends which has direct combat related purchases effecting game play, not "pay to win". It is all about how you design it.
Quote:

You players should advocate freely and fairly for this system. Just because you have been burnt in the past, does not mean you have WILL be burnt here with an item shop... AND IT TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE AND UNFAIR OF YOU TO SAY THAT CCP HAS THIS INTENTION


terrible rage and such bad ideas, nobody likes the idea so maybe just biomass if the sub is such an issue for you.

damn i cant imagine the rage you would have if ccp decided to charge for expansions or require you to spend £60 on a set of game discs + subscription

Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*

Stacy Lone
Nirakura Inc
Decisions of Truth
#71 - 2015-06-17 14:24:21 UTC
Making EVE F2p would instantly kill it.

I despise F2P games, and am mostly disappointed when a game that could have good prospects gets announces as F2P.


Making EVE f2P would instantly kill the whole economy and thus make the game pretty much stuoid and not fun. Need Minerals? make yourself a dozen of mining alts and you can fly whatever you want because you can mine it in no time. Los wouldn't matter. ISK wouldn't. We would see an increase in supercapitals and titans, because getting the minerals for them would be stupidly trivial.

In short: the whole game balance would simply collapse.

The only thing that would still matter is skill points. And since CCP would need an income source, selling Sp for $$ wouldn't be a bad idea, making the game P2W.

No thanks. I actually love having to pay a subscription. Paying a subscription ensures that there is an even playing field. I hate F2P games, because they aren't free. You are just paying in another way. If you don't pay money, then you are paying by being the cannon fodder for other players, and if you are paying oney it is likely that you are paying far more then you would for a sub game, and it would also mean that you can get "better" at the game just because you have more $$$ irl. That's all things I don't like.

There is a reason why subscription models are on the rise again and why some other games that have been / are about to be published chose subscriptions instead of F2P / P2W.
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#72 - 2015-06-17 14:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Commissar Kate
Aminari Talar wrote:
Actually, There is nothing wrong with it at all. It works perfectly fine in many other games (like league of legends).

If you can provide an example where one hero in league massively destroys all other hero's because its only "Bought" with "real money" i will give up this point and remove it from the list.

other wise its all based on your "experience" getting repeatedly "raped" by someone in some "pay to win game".


LoL does not have an ingame economy like EvE has. That's the issue.

LoL is also a MOBA not a sandbox MMO. Please stop comparing them.
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#73 - 2015-06-17 14:29:42 UTC
I could see getting to a point where the subscription price is reduced and there is additional CCP revenue from customizations, etc. But I don't want the subscription price to go away.

Think how much it would lower the quality of the average player.

Pixie Tickle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2015-06-17 14:34:09 UTC
Commissar Kate wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Actually, There is nothing wrong with it at all. It works perfectly fine in many other games (like league of legends).

If you can provide an example where one hero in league massively destroys all other hero's because its only "Bought" with "real money" i will give up this point and remove it from the list.

other wise its all based on your "experience" getting repeatedly "raped" by someone in some "pay to win game".


LoL does not have an ingame economy like EvE has. That's the issue.

LoL is also a MOBA not a sandbox MMO. Please stop comparing them.

Let's compare Go with 4-in-a-row while we're at it! It's virtually the same, ya put dots on a field right?
Samir Duran Xadi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2015-06-17 15:06:34 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
There is always a place to make free accounts ( to attract new players), but the balance will be hard as hell.
Cyno alts, mining alts, R&D alts, production slots all of this must be excluded from those accounts.


CCP dug their own hole all those years trying to squeeze more revenue from their customers by making alts so essential. They get no sympathy from me when it comes to alts.
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#76 - 2015-06-17 15:10:41 UTC
Commissar Kate wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Actually, There is nothing wrong with it at all. It works perfectly fine in many other games (like league of legends).

If you can provide an example where one hero in league massively destroys all other hero's because its only "Bought" with "real money" i will give up this point and remove it from the list.

other wise its all based on your "experience" getting repeatedly "raped" by someone in some "pay to win game".


LoL does not have an ingame economy like EvE has. That's the issue.

LoL is also a MOBA not a sandbox MMO. Please stop comparing them.



We are not debating if the game is a moba or has an economy, stop beating around the bush and trying to say that these things have any reflection on the fact that a "item shop" is bad.

Your deflection from the fact that there is many games out there with item shops, trying to hide behind the banner of genre does not prove that item shops are all pay to win, and even if you could prove something like that, that does not make it the case here considering there is "always exceptions to the rule".

your deflection to this is nothing more then a pathetic attempt to invalidate a perfectly rewarding system to both players and studio's a like.
Pixie Tickle
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2015-06-17 15:18:51 UTC
Aminari Talar wrote:
Commissar Kate wrote:
Aminari Talar wrote:
Actually, There is nothing wrong with it at all. It works perfectly fine in many other games (like league of legends).

If you can provide an example where one hero in league massively destroys all other hero's because its only "Bought" with "real money" i will give up this point and remove it from the list.

other wise its all based on your "experience" getting repeatedly "raped" by someone in some "pay to win game".


LoL does not have an ingame economy like EvE has. That's the issue.

LoL is also a MOBA not a sandbox MMO. Please stop comparing them.



We are not debating if the game is a moba or has an economy, stop beating around the bush and trying to say that these things have any reflection on the fact that a "item shop" is bad.

Your deflection from the fact that there is many games out there with item shops, trying to hide behind the banner of genre does not prove that item shops are all pay to win, and even if you could prove something like that, that does not make it the case here considering there is "always exceptions to the rule".

your deflection to this is nothing more then a pathetic attempt to invalidate a perfectly rewarding system to both players and studio's a like.

Okay so ya come here, post nonsense showing ya don't get the game, post nonsense comparing apples and oranges and keep insulting everyone for not being the same aggressive **** ya are yaself.

Way to go man, I'm gonna report this shithole of a thread.
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#78 - 2015-06-17 15:19:50 UTC
The problem is a lot of you have played games by the korean game makers, or studio's like kixeye, blue bytes etc who have intentionally designed their games to be "coined to win".

No one is advocating for a system anywhere near that.

Adding ships to the item shop, is comparable to league of legends in an identical game to that, as it would only serve to diversity the "meta" mixing up the game play.

Its what we call in game design as cyclical balancing systems. The way it works is identical to that system that is currently in eve.

It works like this


Pilots make build A (which we will call nano-ishtar). Everyone see's that nano ishtars are way better then Build b (which we will call zealot spam).

So everyone follows the meta and swaps to build a (nono ishtar) until someone creates build c (shuttles of doom) in which cases everyone follows and the cylce starts over.

Eve works on this cycle, just like League works on a similar cylce, what we have seen as a constant however is that its generally cruiser class ships that are in this mix. We never see for example, a fleet spam of night hawks, but we may see some overly powerful battleship spam from time to time.

this tells us that command ships are not on par with the other stuff, even though they are excellent at lower levels. This means that in time the meta will probably change to be more balanced when the spam drops and they become more relative to the engagement.


Understanding this helps people like you understand how "new ships from the item shop" fits into the meta of the game.
New ships means new content, and new means fresh, and we all love a nice clean fresh feeling. It makes the game feel more like league (in terms of new exciting things every two weeks) as opposed to being "oh its just another ishtar".

There is nothing wrong with this, its extremely good for the game.

The only legit argument placed here is if ccp legit makes these ships more "op" then what ever else, and there is a simple solution to this, just make them equal in stats to hacks but give them new bonus's, Like a hack-ecm hybrid (sorta like a cruiser version of electronic frigates).


This like this would be exciting and refreshing to see in eve and they in no way equate to "Pay to win".
Commissar Kate
Kesukka
#79 - 2015-06-17 15:20:33 UTC
So you are perfectly fine with allowing people to buy ships in a cash shop thus bypassing the mining and manufacturing process making these professions meaningless?
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
#80 - 2015-06-17 15:20:52 UTC
There is indeed something fishy about this thread... the thought the OP is serious.

And unless those playing free were barred from thrashers and catalysts... well, anyone can see the implication.