These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Decline in numbers... starting to turn into RAPID!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3441 - 2016-01-04 12:27:07 UTC
Dyner wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

Last I checked you're not winning ...
... when you replace your losses with your credit card.

But hey, if that's pay2win for you ...

Or hey, what about all these people who buy expensive chars, battleships and officermods ...
... yeah their killboards scream winning!

LOL you people are hilarious! :D
I really don't understand how you're not even a bit ashamed of what you post. :)



I classify any game that offers players the legitimate way to purchase [with real money] an ingame item that can be sold for ingame currency as Pay 2 Win.


My definition is different, and tbh. your definition is widespread in this community but also a little bit silly if you think about it.

PAY TO WIN<-------!!! There has to be winning.....

What you explain would be Pay2convenience(this is EVE) or pay2aqcuire(this is not EVE as you can get everything without paying, subscription excluded OFC). Pay to win IMO is only when you can only access the best equipment by paying(example: ammunition with 100% more damage could be bought for RL money only and not aqcuired with ISK), giving you an advantage. Not paying will leave you crippled and you are not competative. This is not the case in EVE, there is no winning from paying.

In EVE anyone who has the time, can grind and buy the exact same equipment as someone who sell PLEX and buys ships with it. All it does is remove the grind. If the player sell PLEX or grinds, they end up at the same position over time(just the way there is different), hence it is not pay2win. A vexor will never be better in the hands of someone who buys PLEX and sell them than someone who did not (Even if we can buy SP packets at some point. When all skills affecting the vexor are at V, only the player skilll will count). If you pay, you can get the stuff faster, but you will not be better than a player who earned the ISK themselves.

TLDR: If anything EVE is pay2fast / pay2convinience, which is not pay2win.

I hope this helps you to realize why your defintion is not accurate.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3442 - 2016-01-04 12:34:36 UTC
Nachtengel von Rothschild wrote:
will you consider it pay 2 win once you can buy skill points with isk? ... rich people could just plex and buy 200 million sp in 30 minutes of creating a new character.


No. first: that would probably be really really expensive(character bazar would prob be cheaper tbh.).

Second: EVE skills are hardcapped. When you have all skills affecting a certain hull to V, it does not matter if you have 200 mill sp or 30 mill.

third: And even then player skills are much more important if you want to win. Flying in a BS from day one, does not mean you willl win more. It probably means you will get an embarassing kill mail though, from someone in an ishkur. For something to be pay2win, there has to be winning depending on buying. it is not so hard to understand.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Solecist Project
#3443 - 2016-01-04 14:10:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Sero... it's not *your* definition.

It's *the* definition.

When you can buy stuff that makes you better than the rest.

Definitions are by definition not subjective.
They exist so people understand what is being talked about.

I wished people would stop with that nonsense of individualising everything.

PS: not complaining about your post, just about how people ruin language.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3444 - 2016-01-04 14:42:32 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Sero... it's not *your* definition.

It's *the* definition.

When you can buy stuff that makes you better than the rest.

Definitions are by definition not subjective.
They exist so people understand what is being talked about.

I wished people would stop with that nonsense of individualising everything.

PS: not complaining about your post, just about how people ruin language.


I understand what you say, and I agree. Not taking it as criticism. But since you actually don't find any definition on the internet, I per habit put an IMO on there, as a lot of stuff is relative to perception and I rarely work with absolute statements.

I agree that the definition is kinda in the name pay2win. But as you see from this thread the interpretations are still plentyfull. You would be surprised how people even in academia can interpret definitions differently, just due to how people put different importance on different words of an sentence. Hence Imo. I am not as much ruining the language (which is my third language, so it can also just the usual translation barrier), as acknowledging the fact that even facts are perceived through subjective filters having different meaning and interpretation for different people. Even if facts are facts Big smile

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#3445 - 2016-01-04 14:51:52 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

"Meh, I don't want you a customer" is a funny idea but nobody who makes a living by selling his brain's work can really afford it.

pretty sure anyone who has produced or even dealt with ... f*** it even knows what a niche product is knows that is not how it works.


Well, my RL trade involves a niche product and certainly we don't turn away customers who require other services from us, specially if they're repeating customers. vºv



Well, you would not start up a whole new production for a single small customer, I am pretty sure. I mean you are the only person IIRC I have seen who like your "Game card" PVE idea. I fully understand why CCP would not invest in developing something one person wants. Neither would your company invest in a new machine for one small customer, if you have to be honest vºv



I've never claimed that my idea is anything else than that. It's a suggestion, one of different ones I could come up with, in order to fix what I perceive as an issue. PvErs quit when they reach the end of the developer made content and they can't create their own content without starting a completely different playstyle, and one which very likely they've dismissed. "How" provide them with PvE-driven content creation tools is better determined by CCP, since all in all they're the game developers and have a lot more information... but maybe not all. Unknown unknowns are a potential hazard, and what 62% of their customers think and do and want it's mostly a mistery to CCP.
Lan Wang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3446 - 2016-01-04 15:08:38 UTC
Basically ida wants ccp to spoonfeed pve'ers new content so they can run something different 24/7 and not have to think about because they are just too lazy to find the content like everyone else has to...

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*
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3447 - 2016-01-04 15:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: sero Hita
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
sero Hita wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

"Meh, I don't want you a customer" is a funny idea but nobody who makes a living by selling his brain's work can really afford it.

pretty sure anyone who has produced or even dealt with ... f*** it even knows what a niche product is knows that is not how it works.


Well, my RL trade involves a niche product and certainly we don't turn away customers who require other services from us, specially if they're repeating customers. vºv



Well, you would not start up a whole new production for a single small customer, I am pretty sure. I mean you are the only person IIRC I have seen who like your "Game card" PVE idea. I fully understand why CCP would not invest in developing something one person wants. Neither would your company invest in a new machine for one small customer, if you have to be honest vºv



I've never claimed that my idea is anything else than that. It's a suggestion, one of different ones I could come up with, in order to fix what I perceive as an issue. PvErs quit when they reach the end of the developer made content and they can't create their own content without starting a completely different playstyle, and one which very likely they've dismissed. "How" provide them with PvE-driven content creation tools is better determined by CCP, since all in all they're the game developers and have a lot more information... but maybe not all. Unknown unknowns are a potential hazard, and what 62% of their customers think and do and want it's mostly a mistery to CCP.



In the first round, let us just say that this is a problem for you, not all PVE'ers. You have still not convinced me that 62% of EVE players want better PVE or are leaving due to lack of PVE. There are no reason to include everyone who does PVE activities (could be pvp alts) in what you want from CCP. You simply don't know if they agree with you, so stop the BS. If they all hate the PVE as it is now, why is a requirement for introducing new PVE content, that the old PVE missions stays (according to you in an older post in this thread)?

I try avoid to get to caught up in interpretations, but if we really have to then let us look at the ACU for the last 5 years.The mean trend is fairly stable untill may 2014. It drops to a steady plateau untill jan 2015, goes down untill may-june 2015 where it drops untill the stable levels it is at now. If I should interpret this I would rather say that starting after banning input broadcasting(jan 2015) the numbers drop further, and in may 2015 the massive drop might be due to the SOV changes that occured at the same time. Before that it was pretty stable and afterwards pretty stable. Where are the data supporting this is due to lack of engaging PVE? Please don't just repeat that 62% are PVE'ers and that new players leave if they are not in a corp. This is not proof, but you misreading data.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Jill Xelitras
Xeltec services
#3448 - 2016-01-04 17:11:31 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
It's a suggestion, one of different ones I could come up with, in order to fix what I perceive as an issue. PvErs quit when they reach the end of the developer made content and they can't create their own content without starting a completely different playstyle, and one which very likely they've dismissed. "How" provide them with PvE-driven content creation tools is better determined by CCP, since all in all they're the game developers and have a lot more information... but maybe not all. Unknown unknowns are a potential hazard, and what 62% of their customers think and do and want it's mostly a mistery to CCP.



In the first round, let us just say that this is a problem for you, not all PVE'ers. You have still not convinced me that 62% of EVE players want better PVE or are leaving due to lack of PVE. There are no reason to include everyone who does PVE activities (could be pvp alts) in what you want from CCP. You simply don't know if they agree with you, so stop the BS. If they all hate the PVE as it is now, why is a requirement for introducing new PVE content, that the old PVE missions stays (according to you in an older post in this thread)?

I try avoid to get to caught up in interpretations, but if we really have to then let us look at the ACU for the last 5 years.The mean trend is fairly stable untill may 2014. It drops to a steady plateau untill jan 2015, goes down untill may-june 2015 where it drops untill the stable levels it is at now. If I should interpret this I would rather say that starting after banning input broadcasting(jan 2015) the numbers drop further, and in may 2015 the massive drop might be due to the SOV changes that occured at the same time. Before that it was pretty stable and afterwards pretty stable. Where are the data supporting this is due to lack of engaging PVE? Please don't just repeat that 62% are PVE'ers and that new players leave if they are not in a corp. This is not proof, but you misreading data.


Few people can sustain PvP with PvP if you look at the individual. If you look at the economy as a whole, PvP is not sutainable on its own. Somebody needs to harvest ressources, build items and trade them ...

That many people prefer PvE over industry or mining does not mean that those people necessarily prefer PvE over PvP. But I can also understand that there are people who are only interested in PvE. PvE improvements can benefit both types of players.

What is important to me is that EvE is primarily a politico-economical space simulation. That means that economic power, political intrigue and warfare are the core parts. So I'm fine with PvE additions as long as they don't upset either the core principles of EvE or the community as a whole.

I'm a live and let live type of person outside of PvP.



Don't anger the forum gods.

ISD Buldath:

> I Saw, I came, I Frowned, I locked, I posted, and I left.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#3449 - 2016-01-04 17:46:58 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
You simply don't know if they agree with you, so stop the BS.


We don't lol. Fazmarai self appointed herself to the position of "President of PVE". But I'm Emperor-Overlord of PVE and I approved no such appointment so that's moot (lol). In fact, I'd never consider appointing someone to such a lofty postiton when they can hardly be bothered to post anything in the actual PVE sections of this forum...

Darth Vader Voice

I find her lack of PVE posting..suspicious...

/Darth Vader Voice

For real though, Fazmarai can never just say "this is what I want". Like a politician, it's always "the people demand this!" even though 'the people' demand no such thing. As anyone can see by the steady numbers of NPCs slaughtered all across EVE (see DOTLAN), "we" like PVE just fine. Hell, I hope EVE never achieves sentience, because if it does I'm going to have a bunch of angry Blood Raider and Angel Cartel drones flying over my house...
Dyner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3450 - 2016-01-04 18:01:00 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Dyner wrote:
Solecist Project wrote:

Last I checked you're not winning ...
... when you replace your losses with your credit card.

But hey, if that's pay2win for you ...

Or hey, what about all these people who buy expensive chars, battleships and officermods ...
... yeah their killboards scream winning!

LOL you people are hilarious! :D
I really don't understand how you're not even a bit ashamed of what you post. :)



I classify any game that offers players the legitimate way to purchase [with real money] an ingame item that can be sold for ingame currency as Pay 2 Win.


My definition is different, and tbh. your definition is widespread in this community but also a little bit silly if you think about it.

PAY TO WIN<-------!!! There has to be winning.....

What you explain would be Pay2convenience(this is EVE) or pay2aqcuire(this is not EVE as you can get everything without paying, subscription excluded OFC). Pay to win IMO is only when you can only access the best equipment by paying(example: ammunition with 100% more damage could be bought for RL money only and not aqcuired with ISK), giving you an advantage. Not paying will leave you crippled and you are not competative. This is not the case in EVE, there is no winning from paying.

In EVE anyone who has the time, can grind and buy the exact same equipment as someone who sell PLEX and buys ships with it. All it does is remove the grind. If the player sell PLEX or grinds, they end up at the same position over time(just the way there is different), hence it is not pay2win. A vexor will never be better in the hands of someone who buys PLEX and sell them than someone who did not (Even if we can buy SP packets at some point. When all skills affecting the vexor are at V, only the player skilll will count). If you pay, you can get the stuff faster, but you will not be better than a player who earned the ISK themselves.

TLDR: If anything EVE is pay2fast / pay2convinience, which is not pay2win.

I hope this helps you to realize why your defintion is not accurate.


My definition allows for zero 'wiggle room'.

With your's I, as CCP, could move every single ship and equipment past T1 and Battleship class to a Cash Shop and then just leave them 'unbound' so they can be sold on the Market Place for ISK. Games not Pay2Win still because anyone can buy a T2, T3, or Faction ship/module!

Now, do I mind PLEX? Oh hell no. I wouldn't be at 122 million SP or have the ships I have without them. -- I still die in PVP, but it's not a setback; just ~3 PLEXs.
Famine Aligher'ri
R E L L I K
#3451 - 2016-01-04 18:17:42 UTC
PvE will always support PvP.

Anyone who doesn't get that obviously does not understand proper PvP systems in online games.

Famine Aligher'ri - Original Solo Pirate

Former The Pirate Syndicate Member

Former D.e.V.i.a.n.c.e member

Former Burn Eden member

Former BioMass Cartel member
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3452 - 2016-01-04 18:33:06 UTC
Dyner wrote:


My definition allows for zero 'wiggle room'.

With your's I, as CCP, could move every single ship and equipment past T1 and Battleship class to a Cash Shop and then just leave them 'unbound' so they can be sold on the Market Place for ISK. Games not Pay2Win still because anyone can buy a T2, T3, or Faction ship/module!

Now, do I mind PLEX? Oh hell no. I wouldn't be at 122 million SP or have the ships I have without them. -- I still die in PVP, but it's not a setback; just ~3 PLEXs.


sure, yours leave no wiggle room, but it is still not correct. Due to what I wrote. The amount of wiggle room does not decide if a definition is right or wrong. It only defines how exact the definition is. Which is fine, because my definition also leaves no wiggle room. The scenario you wrote would just work like PLEX works right now. legalized RMT, so you are right it would not be pay2win as long as there is a market where people can aqcuire the ships. If people hoarded the ships so only those who pay money can get them it would be pay2win. Clearly covered by the definition.

But what is your point? You don't have to buy T2 and T3 in EVE right now. You just invented a weird border case scenario, claiming my definition would not claim it to be pay2win ( which it is not under the conditions defined above). I don't understand, is acccording to you the objective truth that in reality, your example would be pay2win? And if my definition cannot predict that, it is wrong? Because that is a very bad argument IMO.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker
Arya Ikahrus
#3453 - 2016-01-04 18:36:07 UTC
IMHO SP trading for cash is dangerously close to p2w. PLEX is getting a little too flirty for me but whatever, I can live with it, it certainly isn't going away at any rate.
Luckytania
Bullets of Justice
#3454 - 2016-01-04 18:46:40 UTC
Dyner wrote:
I still die in PVP, but it's not a setback; just ~3 PLEXs.


And that is the problem.

It *should* be a setback.

Reliance on, availability of, out of game resources which can be imported into the game breaks the game.

It distorts, pretty much eliminates, in-game calculation of risk/reward.
Dyner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3455 - 2016-01-04 19:05:42 UTC
sero Hita wrote:
Dyner wrote:


My definition allows for zero 'wiggle room'.

With your's I, as CCP, could move every single ship and equipment past T1 and Battleship class to a Cash Shop and then just leave them 'unbound' so they can be sold on the Market Place for ISK. Games not Pay2Win still because anyone can buy a T2, T3, or Faction ship/module!

Now, do I mind PLEX? Oh hell no. I wouldn't be at 122 million SP or have the ships I have without them. -- I still die in PVP, but it's not a setback; just ~3 PLEXs.


sure, yours leave no wiggle room, but it is still not correct. Due to what I wrote. The amount of wiggle room does not decide if a definition is right or wrong. It only defines how exact the definition is. Which is fine, because my definition also leaves no wiggle room. The scenario you wrote would just work like PLEX works right now. legalized RMT, so you are right it would not be pay2win as long as there is a market where people can aqcuire the ships. If people hoarded the ships so only those who pay money can get them it would be pay2win. Clearly covered by the definition.

But what is your point? You don't have to buy T2 and T3 in EVE right now. You just invented a weird border case scenario, claiming my definition would not claim it to be pay2win ( which it is not under the conditions defined above). I don't understand, is acccording to you the objective truth that in reality, your example would be pay2win? And if my definition cannot predict that, it is wrong? Because that is a very bad argument IMO.


I picked T1 and Battleships because, most T2/T3/Faction has a T1 'gimped' version. And Battleship, because I would venture most of the playerbase is not flying Caps (not a huge majority, but more than 50%). And that's how you run a proper Cash Shop game, you don't put the things that are commonly used behind the pay wall. You put the 'good stuff'. Oh, and you make it relatively cheap, around the $2-5 mark seems to work best.

As for the point of all of this. Another poster in this thread said the people complaining were either wanting f2p or p2w (paraphrasing). I pointed out that the game is already pay 2 win. People just want to ignore it because ships aren't for sale; just PLEX and vanity items.

But, apparently, CCP could be making a whole lot more money by moving part of the game behind a pay wall that still allows players to buy those items...provided someone coughs up real money at some point for them.

...like moving Fuel Blocks, PoS License (don't know if you still needs those for hi-sec PoS?), some of the PI stuff like the ability to own a Custom's Office, adding a License to own (read Mine) Moons, the Capital Ships skill book(s). But make them cost AURUM, yet still be 'unbound' so you can sell them on the Market.
Solecist Project
#3456 - 2016-01-04 19:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Selling a cap for 5 bucks to an actually really small part of the playerbase is completely wrong calculation
and diminishes the value of capitals. No one is going to see any value in capitals at that price.

You must be confusing EVE with some other, worthless game.

You seem to be forgetting why people buy crap in f2p games in the first place.

They all feed the egos of people who lack self esteem.
No one's ego will be fed if they can get a capship for 5 bucks.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Dyner
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3457 - 2016-01-04 19:18:33 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Selling a cap for 5 bucks to an actually really small part of the playerbase is completely wrong calculation
and diminishes the value of capitals. No one is going to see any value in capitals at that price.

You must be confusing EVE with some other, worthless game.


Hmm, you're right, it would need to be about $60 for Dreads.

And Titans would be about $1,500.

But if players actually saw that price they'd probably not buy it; so $20 and $100. That should be the point at which people say "meh, **** it, it's faster and cheaper to just buy it". Instead of going to the Market and buying it with ISK....from a player that purchased it with real money.

Source: Assuming PLEX is still going for about 700 million in Jita.

((http://eve.smith-net.org.uk/capital/phoenix/ and http://eve.smith-net.org.uk/capital/leviathan/ -- Caldari for life!))

NOTE: These ISK prices did not include equipment or Skill books.

And, again, this is apparently not a Pay 2 Win model! CCP, get on it!
Solecist Project
#3458 - 2016-01-04 19:27:09 UTC
1.500,-- for a Titan sounds like a lot ...
... on the other hand do people exist who pay for that.

Of course, that price really only works if there aren't that many titan pilots around in the first place.


I'm just saying that pricing something too cheap ruins its value completely.

Owning a capship, or even a titan, should fill the owner with pride ...
... which means the price has to reflect that pride.

I remember insane people claiming they've thrown several thousand bucks at ArcheAge ...
... and sadly I have no reason not to believe it.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Olikia Audene
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3459 - 2016-01-04 19:56:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Olikia Audene
Olikia Audene wrote:
Average skillpoints: 31,858,905
Total skills: 32,037,270
Average skills: 118
Average age: 6y 103d

Now, my age is by far below 6 years,
not even half of that in game time.

Also, my top skill points is around 20m SP.
My average SP is around 10m SP or less.

Those average stats are above the EVE Online averages as well.
I am sure that the average players are of less Skill points.
I saw a graph of this a while back, and I can't find it again.

The graph is on Skillpoint distribution
from
http://eveboard.com/statistics

Averages are
1-5m SP 32,000 pilots
5m-10m SP 25,000 pilots
10-15m SP 20,000 pilots
15-20m SP 16,000 pilots
sero Hita
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3460 - 2016-01-04 20:40:14 UTC
Dyner wrote:


I picked T1 and Battleships because, most T2/T3/Faction has a T1 'gimped' version. And Battleship, because I would venture most of the playerbase is not flying Caps (not a huge majority, but more than 50%). And that's how you run a proper Cash Shop game, you don't put the things that are commonly used behind the pay wall. You put the 'good stuff'. Oh, and you make it relatively cheap, around the $2-5 mark seems to work best.

As for the point of all of this. Another poster in this thread said the people complaining were either wanting f2p or p2w (paraphrasing). I pointed out that the game is already pay 2 win. People just want to ignore it because ships aren't for sale; just PLEX and vanity items.

But, apparently, CCP could be making a whole lot more money by moving part of the game behind a pay wall that still allows players to buy those items...provided someone coughs up real money at some point for them.

...like moving Fuel Blocks, PoS License (don't know if you still needs those for hi-sec PoS?), some of the PI stuff like the ability to own a Custom's Office, adding a License to own (read Mine) Moons, the Capital Ships skill book(s). But make them cost AURUM, yet still be 'unbound' so you can sell them on the Market.


But it is not pay2win (Due to what i wrote earlier). So we don't have to continue to argue this. Just to make this clear just because it is not pay2win does not mean it would a good idea to implement, or that i support it at all or want it. I am just strictly discussing the definition of pay2win, because you have a very unlogical definition. that was all. I feel we are not getting anywhere with this discussion, so I will stop now.

"I'm all for pvp, don't get me wrong. I've ganked in Empire, blobed in low sec. Got T-shirts from every which-where.. But to be forced into a pvp confrontation that I didn't want is wrong ccp." RealFlisker