These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Open Letter to the Developers of EVE Online [CCP]

First post
Author
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#1 - 2012-01-17 02:42:10 UTC
This morning in the shower, I remembered that needed to cancel my EVE Online subscription before the renewal date. This must be the tenth time I’ve cancelled my subscription, and even before doing so I know I’ll be back as a subscriber again. I then got to thinking why do I keep alternately subscribing and cancelling my subscription to EVE Online, and what could be done to keep me, and others like me, as steady customers. During the length of said shower I came up with the contents of the following open letter…

This is an open letter to the developers of EVE Online [the game]. My intent is to voice my opinion on how best to move the EVE Universe forward and make the game more appealing to a larger audience. My reasoning is twofold. The first is selfish: it is simply how I’d like to see the EVE Universe change to best suit my vision how it should be. The second is more altruistic: it is the simple truth that the more people in numbers and variety that play the game, the better the game’s economy works and since the EVE Universe is first and foremost an economy simulation this is where efforts need to be focused.

Let us start with the solo player aspect of the game. Today, despite the game’s developers’ best efforts, I could define solo play in the EVE Universe as boring and repetitive. Playing alone in any massively multiplayer online game [MMO] is, by definition, not intended use. However, it is the way a very large portion of the subscribing populous does in fact play these games. There are a huge number of reasons to play alone in a game populated with thousands (or millions) of other people, all playing the same game. Reasons vary from insufficient time to play with others; to not knowing other players therefore not having friends to play with; to simply being introverted and preferring ones’ own company to that of others. Whatever the reason these are paying customers and should be catered to.

There are a number of issues with EVE Online’s solo player experience. First there’s limited reasons to play solo. The primary activities done solo, in my experiences playing the game, are completing missions, mining asteroids, and engaging in the harassment of other players for my own enjoyment. Let’s first focus on the experiences that do not require the involvement of other players.

The completion of missions is a moderately rewarding experience. In my experience the reward curve (measured in the enjoyment of the activity as opposed to the in game currency reward) is a third degree curve: one that starts very high on the enjoyment axis and quickly drops to below zero, only to oscillate above and below the zero axis until at comes to reset at zero. The problem with mission completion is repetition with the impetus to move forward. The only compelling reasons to complete missions that I know of are the in game currency reward [ISK], loyalty points (another form of currency), and faction standing (a third form of currency used to access more missions).

Mining in the EVE Universe is potentially the most boring activity ever presented to mankind as a form of play. Even golf is far more an exciting and rewarding way to spend your time. As best I can tell mining as an activity only exists in the game to provide a limitation to the influx of new raw materials thus stabilizing the economy. It requires hours of time spent doing mindless tasks best left to a automation and is both a waste of personal time for the EVE Online subscriber as well as server time for CCP.

In my opinion these are insufficient rewards to keep the game interesting to anyone who, for whatever reason, is playing solo and that customer will unsubscribe as their return on investment [ROI] decreases past their minimal threshold for paying the subscription fee. With mining it is even worse that with completing missions because there’s very little personal ROI for those engaged in spending their days and nights mining for ore to sell for ISK. In fact it has become such a critical, yet painfully boring part of the game that many players have looked outside the offerings of CCP to spend additional money to purchase software which will automate mining and therefore reduce the boredom. This means that the only way to make mining enjoyable is to violate the end user license agreement [EULA]. Making a bad situation worse is that the large scale usage of bots to make mining rewarding punishes those who haven’t broken the EULA by suppressing the value of ore in the economy and consuming deposits (asteroids). This is a fundamentally broken system, and I fully believe CCP knows it to be broken because I have seen obvious usage of automated mining tools [bots] go on for months without any repercussions.

[CCP: If a player never logs off and never stops mining, that player is a bot. Clear and simple.]
  • A.Mobius
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#2 - 2012-01-17 02:42:47 UTC
Then what are the rewards to encourage the mass of solo players to continue playing EVE Online? First is to making completing missions interesting. This means more story arcs and some method to personalize the experience. My recommendations are to add a new mechanism to the game called “Crew” which cannot be bought or sold but only obtained through completing missions, faction standing, and the upcoming Incarna interaction which are to be added to the game.

I see Crew working as such: ships in the game have a number of “Crew Slots” which allow the assignment of “Crew Members”, smaller ships having fewer lots and larger ships having more. Crew Members add specific bonuses to the various aspects of a ship when assigned. For example a Crew Member might make a ship accelerate faster and change direction quicker as well. One important difference between ship modules and Crew Members is that Crew Members increased their value over time. The longer you have a Crew Members assigned to an active ship the better and more varied their skills become. This is analogous to how player characters improve over time using the game’s learning mechanism. However, like ship modules, if a ship is destroyed there’s only a small chance a Crew Member will survive and the captain will need to return to rescue the lost Crew Member(s). Crew Members rescued by another captain might be persuaded to abandon their old captain and join the new captain, but this should be dependent on the Crew Members loyalty requirements (such as faction and/or Concord standing, or the captain’s race) and the captains’ competing social skills.

Crew gives players another reason to not want to lose their active ship because Crew Members are built up over time and longer you keep your Crew Member alive the better they are. Therefore losing them can be traumatic. Losing them to a non-player faction could result in rescue missions, losing them to a player could result in hostage negotiations, police reports, or the afore mentioned rescue missions. There are dozens of ways this could be played out. Most importantly, acquiring new Crew Members should involve interactions at a station where by the Crew Member is recruited. This would ideally be done via Incarna, but not be delayed by Incarna being a requirement.

To make Crew Members balanced and prevent hording, I recommend that CCP require that Crew Members receive a periodic salary regardless of use. Any Crew Member “possessed” by a pilot should cost an amount of ISK relative to their skill levels each period (be it an hour, a day, or a month). This should be true of Crew Members assigned to a ship or simply waiting at the station. Unpaid Crew Members should leave the employ of their captain and become part of the pool, available to other captains. Another limitation to dissuade hording should be the limitation that Crew Members only improve their skills when assigned to an active ship, though the ship shouldn’t need to be undocked; and to be fair their skill should increase whenever their captain’s skills are increasing.

The fact that the majority of the EVE Universe’s population lives within the Great Empires means the majority of new Crew Members can only be found within the boards of the Great Empires. This gives meaning to security status, as outlaws actually have a penalty for being barred from higher security space: they don’t have access to the large pool of available Crew Members. EVE Online’s security status has always been a joke because nobody really cared about it, now there’s a mechanism by which it becomes important. Of course, Agents who are very happy with the performance of a captain, could introduce potential new Crew Members as well; and this should be true of Empire Agents as well as “Pirate” Agents.
  • A.Mobius
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#3 - 2012-01-17 02:43:29 UTC
The experience of completing missions could also be improved by reducing the chance that my third solo activity (engaging in the harassment of other players for my enjoyment) is reduced while in the process of completing a mission. I have a simple mechanism and a solid in game logic to explain it.

Since most missions are in “dead space” where faster than light travel [FTL] isn’t possible, it shouldn’t be possible for any kind of scanners to detect activity within dead space. Somebody needs to explain to me how anything is detected inside dead space at faster than light. Even at the amazingly fast speed of light, it takes eight minutes to each the Earth from the sun and over four hours to reach Neptune. Given that, dead space should be blocking any FTL transmission. How are details such as ship placement visible from within a pocket of dead space? Simply put they shouldn’t be. The pocket of dead space itself should be easily detectable, but not the contents within. Therefore players looking to harass other players should be allowed to warp to the edge of the dead space pocket, but be forced to travel at sub-luminal speeds looking for the acceleration gate, potentially a multi-hour/day activity.

Without this limitation imposed by dead space what logical reason is there that the EVE Universe’s massive empires still have rouge elements within them? How can a military body the size of the Gallente Federation Navy, which protects hundreds if not thousands of planets, be unable to hunt down and decimate a single corporation? Why provide the player characters with secret acceleration gate locations when anyone who warps to the edge of the dead space will magically find the necessary acceleration gate? The only logical thing to do here is to make dead space FTL signal-dead and prevent the scanning of the objects within. Only by knowing the location of an acceleration gate can one access the dead space. Finally, the discovery of these acceleration gates should be one of the key activities of the upcoming Incarna experience; players should need to research, coerce, and bribe the information to use for their selves, provide to the empires, or sell to the highest bidder.
This change doesn’t have to be limited to solo player activity. By changing the nature of dead space, player run corporations will more easily be able to hide their player own stations and other valuables, however now the valuable location will be the acceleration gate(s).

To offset the safety provided by a darkened dead space, I believe CCP should prevent warp from being initiated with dead space as well. Except in the case of pod emergency warp, ships should require the use of an acceleration gate to get out of dead space as well. This means once players have committed to a mission they must complete it or fail. With the addition of Crew the stakes have been raised and the player has only themselves to blame. These stressful situations with so much on the table are amazingly rewards when you succeed; they can be quite addicting.

The only method I have come up with to resolving the problem of the low ROI the activity of mining provided for EVE Online subscribers is the same solution that so many before me have come up with: use a bot. From my point of view CCP has a choice to make: either get serious about banning bots and punishing users of them, or create your own mining bot. I believe CCP should create a sanctioned mining bot which can keep a character online, even when the player has logged out, to continue mining as much as possible.

Admittedly this will have an impact on the economy due to the flood of raw materials. I do have this to say about it however: because asteroids are limited and are consumed by the act of mining the actual amount of minerals being dumped on the market is limited; in my experience this nearly happening today anyways; therefore by allowing all subscribers to engage in mining with a bot only EULA breakers are being punished. However, since there will likely be more minerals injected into the market we need a proper sink to keep the economy balanced.
  • A.Mobius
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#4 - 2012-01-17 02:44:08 UTC
Let’s talk T3 battleships and ship modules. It is, and has been, my opinion that there should be benefits for hard welding modules to a ship such that that ship is no longer flexible. This is what I think T3 battleships should be. I’d recommend giving them a significant boost to performance with the drawback at removing ship modules from the ship destroys the modules. The same should be true of T3 ship modules as well: once fitted to a ship they cannot be unfit without being destroyed. This would make them rare and therefore valuable; in addition it would require the use of large amount of minerals to keep the consumer population happy thus offsetting the CCP provided mining bot.

Player harassment in the game is what separated EVE Online from its MMO competitors. I would not recommend removing it. As outlined above, I do recommend attaching difficulties and penalties to it however. Today the few garner too much happiness at the expense of the many and the many have no recourse by to punish CCP by voting with their wallets and their feet. There should be a system of laws in place that have meaning and impact, and I believe requiring minimal security status to have access to new Crew Members and to Agents to for access to acceleration gates should be enough.

I would touch on one last topic before ending this letter. I’d like to touch on the topic of subscriptions and pay for services. To date, CCP has been an industry leader in innovative methods by which to profit while adding value to their customers’ experiences. The concept of PLEX is an elegant and fairly effective method by which to limit the impact of “gold farmers” on the game. The Character Bazaar is another elegant was to deter the existence of third party character sellers (aka XP Farmers) who’s only value add is the ability to skip a portion of the game for a price. Both models bolster CCP’s bottom line while improving the gaming experience. With all of these novel methods of allowing subscribers to pay for what they want, I recommend that CCP consider making the subscription system for EVE Online even more flexible.

First, make EVE Online free to play. Limit free accounts to the same rules as Trial Accounts are currently limited. In addition only allow free accounts to logon for a limited amount of time each day, perhaps two hours per day is a good amount of time. During this time is the only time a character on the account can accumulate new skill points; and if the Crew idea is implemented limited Crew Member skill point accrual to limited to this time as well. This would vastly increase the number of active players in the game, benefiting the economy through diversity and volume. Benefiting the economy is benefitting everyone, and the ability to advertise EVE Online as free should a boon to CCP’s marketing department. Seems like a win-win for everyone. Of course, the first 14 or 30 days should be free, as is the model today.

Second, enable tiers of services for players capable and willing to spend more money on their past time. For example, I recommend that CPP allow players to pay an extra $10 to purchase a 30-Day Pilot Training Accelerator License [PTAL] which can be used to increase their character’s learning speed by 50%, or be sold on the in game market for ISK. Perhaps even allow two PTALs to be applied to a single character at a time, effectively doubling the characters skill point accrual for 30 days. Sell Pilot License [PLEX] in various denominations. 15-day for US$10, 30-day for US$15, and 90-day US$40 seem the most logical denominations to me. This will allow players short on cash to continue their character’s development on a reduced budget; and allow those players who have the capacity to spend the additional money on a CCP product. This would also make the in game economy more fluid as the diversity of PLEX products increased and players could make choices based on their bet as to which products will best maintain their in game value relative to the real world cost.
  • A.Mobius
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#5 - 2012-01-17 02:44:43 UTC
There you have roughly twenty minutes of thought. While admittedly a long shower, is a short amount of time to have spent thinking about topics as in depth as this. Therefore I present these thought as what they are, the initial seeds of ideas, not yet fully thought out or scoped. I do believe there’s something valuable here and therefore have presented these ideas as is. Thanks for your time and I hope something has sparked your imagination.

Fly safe
  • A.Mobius
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#6 - 2012-01-17 02:52:46 UTC
..the kind of people flying solo and doing 'their stuff' mostly have a limited time window only for the game and would like to enjoy this time to the fullest - within a ruthless sci-fi-environment.
Your proposal to field crews on ships does not make sense in that regard, as this would need coordination and more importantly - trust.

Take another shower...
Anika Mobius
Solid State Security
#7 - 2012-01-17 02:58:19 UTC
Tres Farmer wrote:
..the kind of people flying solo and doing 'their stuff' mostly have a limited time window only for the game and would like to enjoy this time to the fullest - within a ruthless sci-fi-environment.
Your proposal to field crews on ships does not make sense in that regard, as this would need coordination and more importantly - trust.

Take another shower...


I think you misunderstand. Crews would be NPCs not human controlled. Therefore would not require anymore coordination. At least that's my vision for it.
  • A.Mobius
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
#8 - 2012-01-17 03:05:12 UTC
Anika Mobius wrote:
Tres Farmer wrote:
..the kind of people flying solo and doing 'their stuff' mostly have a limited time window only for the game and would like to enjoy this time to the fullest - within a ruthless sci-fi-environment.
Your proposal to field crews on ships does not make sense in that regard, as this would need coordination and more importantly - trust.

Take another shower...

I think you misunderstand. Crews would be NPCs not human controlled. Therefore would not require anymore coordination. At least that's my vision for it.

Uh, right.. aehm.. so, you want to introduce 'power ups' for ships that are harder to trade (which is against the core of eve btw) to 'vitalize' mission running?
Also, rigs already work that way somewhat.. you run missions, get stuff, convert it into power up parts to hardwire them to your ship and if it gets blown up, they're gone.
Rory Orlenard
Eve Pilots Revolutionary Army
#9 - 2012-01-17 03:17:04 UTC
I read 90% of that ...whew. Some good ideas but leave the probing alone, it works well and as intended. Eve doesn't have to conform to real world physics any more then the Universe has to take on the properties of the mathmatics we humans use to describe it with.
I have previously put forth the idea of CCP supplied bots, ones where you earned the LP to spend on a bot that could only be operated for a limited number of hours and harvested less then a real player - it didn't go over well.
But I would like to encourage you to run for CSM this year - you obviously care about the game and think of it.
Tiberius Sunstealer
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-01-17 03:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Sunstealer
Sverige Pahis wrote:
tl;dr

tl;dr Version:
  • Crew Members: Rigs 0.5 where you level them up by having your ship docked.
  • Deadspace: I really had no idea what Anika was rambling on about. There were words put together but they had no meaning. I think Anika is trying to allow people to gank in deadspace and not allow you to warp out of deadspace.
  • T3: Make all T3 ships use their modules like rigs ie. they cannot be removed.
  • F2P: Make EVE F2P with all F2P having limitations.
  • PTAL: Have boosters that increase SP/H by 50% and allow two to be applied at a time.
  • PLEX: Reduce PLEX prices.
  • [*] Bots: CCP makes mining bots.
    Jack Tronic
    borkedLabs
    #11 - 2012-01-17 03:51:45 UTC
    Quote:
    Let’s talk T3 battleships and ship modules. It is, and has been, my opinion that there should be benefits for hard welding modules to a ship such that that ship is no longer flexible. This is what I think T3 battleships should be. I’d recommend giving them a significant boost to performance with the drawback at removing ship modules from the ship destroys the modules. The same should be true of T3 ship modules as well: once fitted to a ship they cannot be unfit without being destroyed. This would make them rare and therefore valuable; in addition it would require the use of large amount of minerals to keep the consumer population happy thus offsetting the CCP provided mining bot.


    T3s are and will always be produced from WSPACE, minerals are barely required.
    Anika Mobius
    Solid State Security
    #12 - 2012-01-17 04:05:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Anika Mobius
    Tiberius Sunstealer wrote:
    Sverige Pahis wrote:
    tl;dr

    tl;dr Version:
  • Crew Members: Rigs 0.5 where you level them up by having your ship docked.
  • Deadspace: I really had no idea what Anika was rambling on about. There were words put together but they had no meaning. I think Anika is trying to allow people to gank in deadspace and not allow you to warp out of deadspace.
  • T3: Make all T3 ships use their modules like rigs ie. they cannot be removed.
  • F2P: Make EVE F2P with all F2P having limitations.
  • PTAL: Have boosters that increase SP/H by 50% and allow two to be applied at a time.
  • PLEX: Reduce PLEX prices.
  • Bots: CCP makes mining bots.

  • Might be the most misleading summary I've seen in years. Thanks for trying, but I suppose I should summarize this myself for the "too long; didn't read" crowd.


    • Crew: New type of "module" that cannot be purchased or traded and can only be aquired by convincing them to join you. Crew would cost ISK monthly (as salary) regardless of account state. Crew would add bonsues similar to how rigs work today and could improve over time so long as they're assigned to an active ship on an active account.
    • Change deadspace so that mission ganking is more difficult. Make fleeing from mission more difficult to compensate.
    • T3 Ships and Modules recommendation: make them powerful, but fit once like Rigs.
    • Make EVE's pricing tiered. Allow players to pay more money to train faster. Enable a F2P mode which only allows a couple of hours a day of game/training time.
    • CCP Mining Bots: Time for CCP to **** or get off the pot on the bot situation. Either make thier own bot that only paying accounts can use or start getting serious about stopping EULA breaking bot usage.


    I think that's generally it. It's getting late on my end, so I might have missed something.
    • A.Mobius
    ACE McFACE
    Dirt 'n' Glitter
    Local Is Primary
    #13 - 2012-01-17 04:26:56 UTC
    Anika Mobius wrote:
  • Make EVE's pricing tiered. Allow players to pay more money to train faster. Enable a F2P mode which only allows a couple of hours a day of game/training time.
  • Definatly not this

    Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.

    seany1212
    M Y S T
    #14 - 2012-01-17 04:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
    Crews are a bad idea, next you'll want to be able to fly fleets of ships instead of just one because you have crews, get more alts = crews.

    If you want mission ganking to be more difficult, take a logi in with you, you chose to tank your ship with ridiculously expensive mods for a mission that choses to pay out what? 10 million a turn in? Now if you were taking that ship fitting into a 6/10 guristas plex that dropped a pithum A-type 1.5billion isk shield booster i'd understand it Roll.

    Tech 3 cruisers are meant to be modular, period and they are powerful, are you flying them with your eyes closed?

    You deserve a slap for suggesting F2P considering all the protesting for NO F2P, your either trolling with this entire, long written post or just oblivious to how eve work and has done.

    ONE thing i'll agree on, but i still consider your idea for CCP to make there own bots to be ridiculous, why would they make something that can be potentially game breaking.

    Edit: Off topic part removed, CCP Phantom.
    Jita Alt666
    #15 - 2012-01-17 06:13:16 UTC
    I commend you on your efforts in writing a comprehensive assessment on your feelings toward Eve Online. However I think you may find that many here disagree strongly with F2P (pay to win) and artificial botting.
    Ai Shun
    #16 - 2012-01-17 06:48:35 UTC
    Anika Mobius wrote:


    • Crew: New type of "module" that cannot be purchased or traded and can only be aquired by convincing them to join you. Crew would cost ISK monthly (as salary) regardless of account state. Crew would add bonsues similar to how rigs work today and could improve over time so long as they're assigned to an active ship on an active account.
    • Change deadspace so that mission ganking is more difficult. Make fleeing from mission more difficult to compensate.
    • T3 Ships and Modules recommendation: make them powerful, but fit once like Rigs.
    • Make EVE's pricing tiered. Allow players to pay more money to train faster. Enable a F2P mode which only allows a couple of hours a day of game/training time.
    • CCP Mining Bots: Time for CCP to **** or get off the pot on the bot situation. Either make thier own bot that only paying accounts can use or start getting serious about stopping EULA breaking bot usage.


    I think that's generally it. It's getting late on my end, so I might have missed something.


    F2P? Bots? Please no. I can see why you unsubscribe from EVE frequently though.
    Andski
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #17 - 2012-01-17 07:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
    get your F2P nonsense out of here

    Edit: Inappropriate part removed, CCP Phantom.

    Twitter: @EVEAndski

    "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

    ACE McFACE
    Dirt 'n' Glitter
    Local Is Primary
    #18 - 2012-01-17 07:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
    Quote:
    CCP Mining Bots: Time for CCP to **** or get off the pot on the bot situation. Either make thier own bot that only paying accounts can use or start getting serious about stopping EULA breaking bot usage.

    I obviously agree with the need for CCP to crack down on bots, but that should be the only option

    Edit: Off topic part removed, CCP Phantom.

    Now, more than ever, we need a dislike button.

    Cyaxares II
    Vectigalia Inc
    #19 - 2012-01-17 07:33:17 UTC
    Solo players are less likely to generate content/social interactions that will make current players stay in the game.
    I guess they are also less likely to recruit new players into the game.

    If CCP invests some money to make a socially connected and active player happy they'll get a higher multiplier on that investment than if they spend the same amount of money on a solo player.
    Valei Khurelem
    #20 - 2012-01-17 07:37:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
    Quote:
    I obviously agree with the need for CCP to crack down on bots, but that should be the only option


    Sorry, but as long as the gameplay is autonomous and repetitive, bots will always exist and saying that actual players can't use them is just spiteful and pathetic when we already know thousands of other users are blatantly using them for their own ends. As far as I'm concerned the people who would be against making bots legal are the same sort who think using exploits and bots are okay to stay on a level playing field with everyone else, granted this isn't strictly true for everyone but it amazes me they never talk about how boring the grind is to think they're completely innocent.

    You won't be able to justify the banning of bots if you don't have a fun game, we already see many examples in real life where simply legalising currently illegal activities and regulating it instead to make it safe would actually bring more benefit to the people involved than keeping it illegal would.

    If CCP made bots legal then they would not only get more money from the accounts but players like me would be happier because stuff like mining wouldn't actually be so tedious anymore so we might actually be able to go some way to enjoying the game rather than logging off every hour or so after finishing because it gets so boring.

    "don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium

    12Next page