These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4501 - 2015-10-23 07:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Dror wrote:

At what point is it OK to stop giving free SP? 10M that can be completely re-oriented however? Then, their only experience with further queueing is completely uninteresting trains?


When to stop giving out SP would be down to CCP to decide. Ideally it would be based on stats only ccp have that show how long the average player takes to get "hooked".

Additional i think all players should get free SP on their characters birthday. New players should get it after playing the game for a month past their trial account. This would:

1. Help new players become "useful" to their chosen corp, faster
2. Reward long term/loyal players
3. Help returning players experience new content quicker.

Dror wrote:
If you're implying they would get bored with a no-SP game, how can you support SP at all?


That didn't make any sense. It's like saying "If you think apples are nutritious, how can you support the eating of apples?"... I already explained why I feel EVEs training system adds value.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Josef Djugashvilis
#4502 - 2015-10-23 07:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
This is not about helping new players, or retaining new players, allowing vets to sell skill points or creating a new players market.

This is about CCP not doing very well financially and making a seemingly desperate grab at a new revenue stream.

Edit: amended comment to a less harsh one.

This is not a signature.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4503 - 2015-10-23 07:34:13 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


If CCP would have a new idea "for 5 plex you will get a fully maxed out pilot and 20 fully fitted titans to go with it", sounds like great fun wouldn't it. What are the chances that a majority of people would vote for that and as such CCP would (have/want to) implement it?

Hey, ppl just want some fun and that is simply the only factor to be considered according to your :logic:.
Dave Stark
#4504 - 2015-10-23 07:39:16 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


If CCP would have a new idea "for 5 plex you will get a fully maxed out pilot and 20 fully fitted titans to go with it", sounds like great fun wouldn't it. What are the chances that a majority of people would vote for that and as such CCP would (have/want to) implement it?

Hey, ppl just want some fun and that is simply the only factor to be considered according to your :logic:.


i appreciate you're making a rhetorical question up there, however had you appropriately priced it (not 5 plex) it might better illustrate the point you're making.

also, the point your making already exists. for a number of plex you can buy 20 fit titans and a pilot to fly them.
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4505 - 2015-10-23 07:39:53 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
This is about CCP not doing very well financially and desperately needing a new revenue stream.


I heard a CCP dev (i think it was fozzie) on a podcast recently bragging that eve is doing well financial... They probably just need cash to put in to side projects like gunjack.

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4506 - 2015-10-23 07:41:42 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
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.


If CCP would have a new idea "for 5 plex you will get a fully maxed out pilot and 20 fully fitted titans to go with it", sounds like great fun wouldn't it. What are the chances that a majority of people would vote for that and as such CCP would (have/want to) implement it?

Hey, ppl just want some fun and that is simply the only factor to be considered according to your :logic:.


i appreciate you're making a rhetorical question up there, however had you appropriately priced it (not 5 plex) it might better illustrate the point you're making.

also, the point your making already exists. for a number of plex you can buy 20 fit titans and a pilot to fly them.


I see you're avoiding the point made: "people want to have fun so we must have this" is a terrible logic.
Dave Stark
#4507 - 2015-10-23 07:50:10 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
I see you're avoiding the point made: "people want to have fun so we must have this" is a terrible logic.


i didn't avoid your point - it already exists. so if anything you're agreeing with me.

if some one finds it fun to purchase a titan pilot and 20 titans he already can.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#4508 - 2015-10-23 08:04:11 UTC
Rek Seven wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
This is about CCP not doing very well financially and desperately needing a new revenue stream.


I heard a CCP dev (i think it was fozzie) on a podcast recently bragging that eve is doing well financial... They probably just need cash to put in to side projects like gunjack.

Do you know which podcast?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#4509 - 2015-10-23 08:09:25 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
I see you're avoiding the point made: "people want to have fun so we must have this" is a terrible logic.


i didn't avoid your point - it already exists. so if anything you're agreeing with me.

if some one finds it fun to purchase a titan pilot and 20 titans he already can.


Yeah but it would be fun to get it at 5 plex.
Dave Stark
#4510 - 2015-10-23 08:10:38 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
I see you're avoiding the point made: "people want to have fun so we must have this" is a terrible logic.


i didn't avoid your point - it already exists. so if anything you're agreeing with me.

if some one finds it fun to purchase a titan pilot and 20 titans he already can.


Yeah but it would be fun to get it at 5 plex.


i agree. b-r every day.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4511 - 2015-10-23 08:10:46 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
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?

Before argument that expirence>skill points: p2w p2w p2w
Now: f2p fp2 2pf
Acronyms makes me crazy!
I could have free sub only because someone paid for it and let me buy it from him. If you want to decrease population of "free" players just don't sell PLEX on the market. But Irish people wont appreciate that decision.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4512 - 2015-10-23 08:33:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Zappity wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
This is about CCP not doing very well financially and desperately needing a new revenue stream.


I heard a CCP dev (i think it was fozzie) on a podcast recently bragging that eve is doing well financial... They probably just need cash to put in to side projects like gunjack.

Do you know which podcast?


I think it was the EN24 podcast ep. 17 but I can't be sure without listening to the entire thing again.

https://soundcloud.com/evenews24/sets/en24-podcast

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4513 - 2015-10-23 08:44:18 UTC
Dror wrote:
...
Ah, there it is. This underlined claim has no precedent, especially in this conversation. The whole point of established motivation theories is commonality.
...


And I disgree with that view as we are all motivated by different things. You cannot whitewash over the arguments of everyone here who is aganist this proposal by telling us that we all think the same and have the same motivations. That is clearly untrue.

Dror wrote:
...
25% unsubs of some hundreds of thousands? In all respect, that's a tiny amount. WoW lost 50%, but the trend is a "lack of content". Oh, sweet -- a sandbox game can have unlimited content without restrictions undermining fresh subs and interest.

So a 5% increase in subs gives huge profits but a 25% loss would be a tiny drop in profits? Maybe someone with better maths skills than I can point out who silly that is...

Dror wrote:
...The implication is still, apparently, that SP doesn't come upon the same reward problems as other extrinsic motivations, which are actually reported as reduced direction and creativity. As with the NPE videos, it's following that Achievements line and having no clue how you got there or no clue what to do next. Maslow's hierarchy would state that the most motivating thing is self-actualization. Yet, how can interested subs show how to be great if both of their skills disallow that?

Halo is the example? Its multiplayer experience sets the experience on a tuned playing field -- same stats, etc. Mario? False equivalence. These aren't sandbox games, nor are they multiplayer. Earning and progression? How is it progression being limited to a tiny window of diversity and unsubbing?


The implication is that training and creating your character is an intrinsic part of the experience in EvE. The statement that this is so from CCP Rise flat out shoots down your agenda of removing skill points entirely. You have also never addressed in either thread you have pushed this in how the impact of tearing the heart out of the existing code and game mechanism would be accomplished. How the frankly obvious impact on the market of every player being able to do everything perfectly would affect the game. You also ignore how alienating a good portion of the existing customers of CCP would be bad business practice.

I already pointed out that Halo etc are simplified versions of the gating system we have in EvE so. Of course the skill ssytem is progression, you guide your character by making choices and open up other options in game available to you. Of course you may think this is only important to those of us who are more RP minded but many disagree and also to discount that area of the player base is stupid.

Dror wrote:
...
The fun comes from being competitive at everything.. (of interest). If a sub gets a character with 35M SP, what if he'd like to recruit his crew? This very idea should explain exactly how essential freedom is.



Fun comes from the individual, it comes from what they enjoy in game and neither you or any other person can define what any individual will find fun. There are many players in the game who will look at you idea that everyone should have acees to capitals and fly in PvP and hate the idea because they don't like capital ships, TiDi, PvP combat or all three together. You are trying to define what fun is for everyone which you simply cannot do. You are trying to use studies to back up your idea of fun for everyone which has been questioned and shot down by many, and is based on your false premise that you know what is fun for everyone.

You are also ignoring the fact that there are many characters who will 'recruit his(her) crew' because that is what they enjoy, helping people, guiding people in there choices, assisting with skill growth etc etc. How does that fit with your model of 'give everyone everything'.

If you got your no skills utopia what would you do then? Not everyone has access to every ship because of cost. Isn't that then another artificial barrier to your idea of 'fun for all'? So what then, free ships of any kind for all? Where do you stop?
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4514 - 2015-10-23 08:54:21 UTC
Dror wrote:
...
Did you miss the listed problems with the progression system? Alternative suggestions are welcome; but implying that the crux of all of these problems is above "console games" and "quick fixes" seems pretty ironic. Those with the most money, for example, can "quick fix" through all of it.

....


Did you miss the fact that most people against this idea do not want a 'quick fix' game where everythging is available immediately? Let me guess, we are all wrong and don't even know what we like and enjoy because 'science' tells us so.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4515 - 2015-10-23 09:08:09 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
...

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.


Surely it is equally absurd to suggest that the largely negative feedback from a forum where only subbed players can post should be ignored.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4516 - 2015-10-23 09:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Surely it is equally absurd to suggest that the largely negative feedback from a forum where only subbed players can post should be ignored.


afkalt wrote:


I think they need to be reaaaaaaally careful they don't just follow the popular voice.

Billions of people use McDonalds - doesn't make it smart.


There is often decent chat there, but putting too much emphasis on it is dangerous. The popular decision is not always the right one.

He is on your side BTW.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4517 - 2015-10-23 09:20:19 UTC
General Lootit wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Surely it is equally absurd to suggest that the largely negative feedback from a forum where only subbed players can post should be ignored.


afkalt wrote:


I think they need to be reaaaaaaally careful they don't just follow the popular voice.

Billions of people use McDonalds - doesn't make it smart.


There is often decent chat there, but putting too much emphasis on it is dangerous. The popular decision is not always the right one.

He is on your side BTW.


Yes he is, we both think that all opinions need to be considered. Both for and against. There's also an implication in previous posts that reddit is the true popular voice which does not invalidate my point that you cannot simply ignore the views of the majority here because they are negative towards the change. The majority view towards citadels originally was largely negative. CCP listened and changed them for the better. I really hope they listen here too.
Dave Stark
#4518 - 2015-10-23 09:23:23 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
...

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.


Surely it is equally absurd to suggest that the largely negative feedback from a forum where only subbed players can post should be ignored.


i've never suggested they should be ignored. merely pointed out that this place isn't the only place with feedback
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
#4519 - 2015-10-23 09:27:42 UTC  |  Edited by: gascanu
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:
...
Did you miss the listed problems with the progression system? Alternative suggestions are welcome; but implying that the crux of all of these problems is above "console games" and "quick fixes" seems pretty ironic. Those with the most money, for example, can "quick fix" through all of it.

....


Did you miss the fact that most people against this idea do not want a 'quick fix' game where everythging is available immediately? Let me guess, we are all wrong and don't even know what we like and enjoy because 'science' tells us so.

yes, you are wrong!
did it cross your mind even for a second that what is was "hard" for you then, it's 2x3x harder for a new player today?
ofc not, but let's talk about good old times... when a new player could join a main alliance op in what, a month? how many corps had recruiting req like hac/recon/t3 lvl5? the main fleets where t1 bs, and no one was bitching at you for bringing a t1 fitted bs, and you knew ballance passes where like years between...
and, about all that "hard" training, do you also forget to add how t3 ships for ex, where not even in game then, and we trained for them one at a time as they where released...

now? a new player need to train hac/recon/logi/t3 like yesterday; and most of the time when they finish trainig for whatever flavor of the month ship alliances are using, boom! CCP drop the nerfhammer, and huh, you need to start training towards another ship, all over again...
it's easy for someone like you to say "heh they don't need a quick fix" when you can switch from one doctrine to another in the same day, isn't it?
is it that hard for you guys to comprehend that 10-12 years of training skill it's a major advantage for "vets" and at the same time a huge handicap for a new player?
you already have huge advantages in sp/exp/isk/ stuff over a new player, is it that hard for you to accept that they need a bit of "support" till they reach a comfort zone of about 10/15/20 mil sps? and not free support, they will have to buy it from olders players with isk ! how risk adverse can you bee?
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4520 - 2015-10-23 09:31:28 UTC  |  Edited by: General Lootit
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

does not invalidate my point.

Yeap, it does not invalidate but only contradict. And it's very comfortable for you because if I start arguing with both of them then I will eventually contradict with myself.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts