These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
vikari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4481 - 2015-10-23 01:40:21 UTC
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea, it it to much to ask that CCP take this idea and consider an alternate variation to the idea? People seem to be more supporting of a system where you can take SP from their character and inject it back into the same character. Why not explore this idea? Even diminishing returns with higher SP characters could be considered. The same cost could be used. I think most can accept the price for fixing years of past mistakes, to be worth a small premium. This also doesn't give you something you haven't earned. It can work with the market to allow more characters to better fit a person, as they can simply invest a little money to change small "issues" they reprieve.
Arec Bardwin
#4482 - 2015-10-23 02:14:15 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

For me, the biggest thing is Still the appearance of the process from the outside. Will it look like a good deal or a cynical money grab from a company that already has a subscription based model and vanity item micro transactions. If the reputation of the game is 'Greed is Good' then that will impact the new player acquisition and retention.
This. But I bet CCP are considering sp trade possibly togther with a free to play model. Pay subscription and earn sp at normal rate, play for free and earn sp at a drastically reduced rate. This could seriously increase the player base.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4483 - 2015-10-23 02:15:29 UTC
Arec Bardwin wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:

For me, the biggest thing is Still the appearance of the process from the outside. Will it look like a good deal or a cynical money grab from a company that already has a subscription based model and vanity item micro transactions. If the reputation of the game is 'Greed is Good' then that will impact the new player acquisition and retention.
This. But I bet CCP are considering sp trade possibly togther with a free to play model. Pay subscription and earn sp at normal rate, play for free and earn sp at a drastically reduced rate. This could seriously increase the player base.

This gets mentioned, but what about alts? I guess it could fit under the "starter" client restriction.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4484 - 2015-10-23 05:00:57 UTC
Arec Bardwin wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:

For me, the biggest thing is Still the appearance of the process from the outside. Will it look like a good deal or a cynical money grab from a company that already has a subscription based model and vanity item micro transactions. If the reputation of the game is 'Greed is Good' then that will impact the new player acquisition and retention.
This. But I bet CCP are considering sp trade possibly togther with a free to play model. Pay subscription and earn sp at normal rate, play for free and earn sp at a drastically reduced rate. This could seriously increase the player base.


And that would be a bad system for various reasons. We don't need more players, this whole "omg only 30k ppl online this is horrible" is hilariously mistaken, we need more INVOLVED players and you only have to look at f2p games like WOT to instantly recognise that we really don't want tomatoes in this game, even though they'd make for great targets, because they'd have to dumb down the game even more. Lets keep out the poorfag riffraff as much as possible, thanks.

On top of that this doesn't increase the number of paying players at all, especially because there's tons of older folks who have a bunch of accounts that don't need skill points anymore, those characters are done, so with this new system they'd simply stop paying for that increased SP rate.


That would backfire on a massive scale.
Dave Stark
#4485 - 2015-10-23 05:30:38 UTC
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#4486 - 2015-10-23 06:08:34 UTC
I think if CCP remove skills tresholds for T2 it wouldn't be a bad thing. They are now not "How" we fly them but "When".
I had perfect example.
Few weeks ago I bought golem. First mission when I used it was amarr epic arc. I fullfilled prequisites (caldari V) but marauders was trained to level II only. Then I'm made a mistake in fitting it (too weak shield booster). I almost lost it in first mission.
Same would be with HACs, how good someone fly them would depend from his skills not train to lvl 5 (race) cruiser.
We have perfect example with faction ships. Very low entry barrier but many skills to master them properly.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4487 - 2015-10-23 06:09:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.


You mean "active players", I'd say that's a good thing. And before you start it, no people won't magically come back because of this change. They might come back for a month to (ab)use this idea and then they'll quit again for the reasons they quit earlier.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#4488 - 2015-10-23 06:15:16 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I still say that there should be a cost in sp for the removal of the points that lessens with the sp total of the character so aa 5.5 million alt will be very inneficient relative to a 50 million sp character. Yes, it does favour the vets. Why not? There should be some perks for being old.

I really dislike this "Won't somebody think of the children!" attitude. Most people who stay in the game are mature adults (well, some of them are anyway) and I think that inexperience in the game is being confused with inability to make personal decisions.

Let them do what they want. Don't limit new players accessing new content. They will figure it out. And if they make a mistake they will learn from it.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#4489 - 2015-10-23 06:19:59 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.


You mean "active players", I'd say that's a good thing. And before you start it, no people won't magically come back because of this change. They might come back for a month to (ab)use this idea and then they'll quit again for the reasons they quit earlier.

Most of the podcast commentary has been positive regarding the feature and derisory regarding the eve-o forum response. Also, I doubt that CCP would agree that getting former players to log back in is not a good thing.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#4490 - 2015-10-23 06:27:33 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Let them do what they want. Don't limit new players accessing new content. They will figure it out. And if they make a mistake they will learn from it.

Then nerfbat will hit on some hulls, "but but but we put monies on that CryCryCry!!!"
They will learn the frist mistake was to start playing.


"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4491 - 2015-10-23 06:36:08 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.


You mean "active players", I'd say that's a good thing. And before you start it, no people won't magically come back because of this change. They might come back for a month to (ab)use this idea and then they'll quit again for the reasons they quit earlier.

Most of the podcast commentary has been positive regarding the feature and derisory regarding the eve-o forum response. Also, I doubt that CCP would agree that getting former players to log back in is not a good thing.


It's not if they have to sell out in order to get a temporary surge only to die out 1-2 months later.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#4492 - 2015-10-23 06:38:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
Wait a minute... why are some people talking about free to play now? What?

I mentioned it as a tinfoil hat explanation for the massive power of the TQ-III server, but CCP can't be considering that seriously... right?

I mean, the foundation of EVE (what is left of it) are the social bonds. And social bonds are incompatible with the mass scale of poor quality noobs associated to free to play.

Imagine if you can, the "Help" channel as a General chat of a F2P. Imagine you are a good potential EVE player and your first task is ignoring the vey plsce where you could ask for help if weren't for the hate-drooling kiddos scrolling it at 1,000 lines per minute...

And then consider how CCP has done zill to improve the game experience of the usual MMORPG player, aka the solo casual PvE (highsec) crowd. The one that now is leaving highsec slow but steady, killing EVE one sub at a time. The one which never gets a chance to play EVE his way, rather is encouraged to stop playing his way and please start playing the game "right", multiplayer second-jobbing anywhere but highsec gameplay.

It would be weird if CCP would rather turn EVE upside down than do something for their bread and butter... the silent, often scorned, unglamurous but abundant and reliable highsec player.

Seriously: Why the mention of free to play? Are you all crazy? What?
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4493 - 2015-10-23 06:41:38 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Wait a minute... why are some people talking about free to play now? What?

I mentioned it as a tinfoil hat explanation for the massive power of the TQ-III server, but CCP can't be considering that seriously... right?

I mean, the foundation of EVE (what is left of it) are the social bonds. And social bonds are incompatible with the mass scale of poor quality noobs associated to free to play.

Imagine if you can, the "Help" channel as a General chat of a F2P. Imagine you are a good potential EVE player and your first task is ignoring the vey plsce where you could ask for help if weren't for the hate-drooling kiddos scrolling it at 1,000 lines per minute...

And then consider how CCP has done zill to improve the game experience of the usual MMORPG player, aka the solo casual PvE (highsec) crowd. The one that now is leaving highsec slow but steady, killing EVE one sub at a time. The one which never gets a chance to play EVE his way, rather is encouraged to stop playing his way and please start playing the game "right", multiplayer second-jobbing anywhere but highsec gameplay.

It would be weird if CCP would rather turn EVE upside down than do something for their bread and butter... the silent, often scorned, unglamurous but abundant and reliable highsec player.

Seriously: Why the mention of free to play? Are you all crazy? What?


People "want" stuff because it suits their personal needs regardless of how dumb or damaging it is, be it f2p or this silly skill trading idea.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#4494 - 2015-10-23 06:50:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
(Stupid forum)

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Sasha Sen
Hull Zero Two
#4495 - 2015-10-23 06:50:34 UTC
I listened to all the voices in my head and the majority ruled AYE.

Permission to deploy this feature in a patch granted CCP.
Dave Stark
#4496 - 2015-10-23 06:54:58 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.


You mean "active players", I'd say that's a good thing. And before you start it, no people won't magically come back because of this change. They might come back for a month to (ab)use this idea and then they'll quit again for the reasons they quit earlier.


most people on reddit are active players. granted, not all are. however, pretending r/eve is full of unsubbed players is even more absurd than pretending this thread is the sum of all feedback for this idea.
Dave Stark
#4497 - 2015-10-23 06:56:04 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Wait a minute... why are some people talking about free to play now? What?

I mentioned it as a tinfoil hat explanation for the massive power of the TQ-III server, but CCP can't be considering that seriously... right?

I mean, the foundation of EVE (what is left of it) are the social bonds. And social bonds are incompatible with the mass scale of poor quality noobs associated to free to play.

Imagine if you can, the "Help" channel as a General chat of a F2P. Imagine you are a good potential EVE player and your first task is ignoring the vey plsce where you could ask for help if weren't for the hate-drooling kiddos scrolling it at 1,000 lines per minute...

And then consider how CCP has done zill to improve the game experience of the usual MMORPG player, aka the solo casual PvE (highsec) crowd. The one that now is leaving highsec slow but steady, killing EVE one sub at a time. The one which never gets a chance to play EVE his way, rather is encouraged to stop playing his way and please start playing the game "right", multiplayer second-jobbing anywhere but highsec gameplay.

It would be weird if CCP would rather turn EVE upside down than do something for their bread and butter... the silent, often scorned, unglamurous but abundant and reliable highsec player.

Seriously: Why the mention of free to play? Are you all crazy? What?


People "want" stuff because it suits their personal needs regardless of how dumb or damaging it is, be it f2p or this silly skill trading idea.


considering in a game people's personal agenda is to have fun - it's hardly surprising when people push things that make things more fun for them.
Mike Adoulin
Happys Happy Hamster Hunting Club
#4498 - 2015-10-23 07:14:07 UTC
*reads the dev blog*

Straight

What?

Ugh

Roll

This.....is a very bad idea.

Naturally, CCP will go the Full ****** and implement it in the next major update.

*sighs*

Everything in EVE is a trap.

And if it isn't, it's your job to make it a trap...:)

You want to know what immorality in EVE Online looks like? Look no further than Ripard "Jester" Teg.

Chribba is the Chuck Norris of EVE.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4499 - 2015-10-23 07:30:06 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
vikari wrote:
Given the over all negative kick back from this idea,


eve-o forums are nowhere near the "over all" for this feedback. in fact the negativity is pretty much isolated to eve-o.


You mean "active players", I'd say that's a good thing. And before you start it, no people won't magically come back because of this change. They might come back for a month to (ab)use this idea and then they'll quit again for the reasons they quit earlier.


most people on reddit are active players. granted, not all are. however, pretending r/eve is full of unsubbed players is even more absurd than pretending this thread is the sum of all feedback for this idea.


It'll have more unsubbed ones than this forum.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4500 - 2015-10-23 07:31:54 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
vikari wrote:
People seem to be more supporting of a system where you can take SP from their character and inject it back into the same character. Why not explore this idea?

Because people who against devs purpose are also wihning about that consequens of skill choises are doesn't matter anymore. Their arguments and suggestions are really controversial.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts