These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A GM's guide to Alpha clone re-balancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#21 - 2017-05-05 04:27:47 UTC
Subscribe and get access to everything.

Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#22 - 2017-05-05 05:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:
The idea that EVE is overpriced at $15/month simply does not match reality. The industry standard for MMO subscriptions is $15/month, and that hasn't kept other games from being immensely popular and profitable. The issue with EVE is not that $15/month is too much, it's that it has a much smaller target market and most of the people who love WoW and similar games wouldn't touch EVE even if omega clones were free.

hog butter wrote:
The disconnect is that no one calculates their online game play as a cost per hour. If anything they view the actual hours spent as an additional cost.

{citation needed}

I don't know about you, but I definitely consider cost per hour in deciding if entertainment is worth it, and I certainly don't consider the hours spent having fun to be some kind of additional cost.


citation needed is hilarious statement when its pretty obvious embellishment.

I overstated my point not EVERYONE I just meant most people. I see this catching on in reviews but that doesn't really mean much due to the fact games once a played is then invested in and no longer is treated as commodity by the consumer. This is manifest itself in ones fervor to protect the game from perceived threats. The problem is a new player that is going to survey what new game to play will treat the subscription as a commodity. Additionally many players have to meet a certain schedule to be competitive in social aspects of the game. This is a demand on ones time and with out family and friends that are understanding this may weigh heavy on your real life obligations. I feel like everyone must know this by now.

Merin Ryskin wrote:
hog butter wrote:

You will here that many people quite XYZ game because it to over their life.

18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income the further you slide down the scale of age the less money to spend on EVE their is.


That has nothing to do with the cost of the game, it's about people who can't find a healthy balance between their hobby and the rest of their life, or even people who become addicted to a game. Crossing the line from fun into obsession has nothing to do with alpha clones or the price of the game.

{citation needed}

A quick search turns up this article suggesting that disposable income peaks around 35-45 and doesn't get down to the level of the early 20s until after retirement age. And this matches the intuitive understanding of the situation, where 18-25 year olds have no family expenses but also have the lowest level jobs. After all, there's a reason why the really expensive hobbies tend to be full of older people who have advanced to high-end jobs and no longer have young kids to take care of.


Yes maybe you have the self control to balance your life but to ignore the fact that people can and do get addicted is pretty terrible logic and it is what is called a hidden cost. Just because your a functional drug user doesn't mean drugs aren't addictive. It just means your a master of your high and might I add good for you.

I think you searched this article quickly but didn't read very thoroughly . The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets.

Citations are for those who are insecure in their arguments. Since I really am a nice guy here you go.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html

The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute. Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#23 - 2017-05-05 05:39:35 UTC
Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about with 90% of this, but it has nothing to do with alpha clones or subscription costs. MMO addiction is a sad thing, but most players are not in that situation.

Quote:
The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets.


What's your point? Discretionary income is discretionary income, and your original claim was that younger people have more discretionary income. You don't suddenly have less of it in total just because you decide to allocate it to something other than a video game.

And of course talking about things like buying houses only highlights my point about EVE being a trivial cost. Compared to the cost of a $300,000 house, $20,000 car, etc, $15/month is so tiny it doesn't even matter in budget calculations. If you're in a position where you're buying houses as an investment then you're going to give that $15/month about as much concern as whether or not you can afford to put three toppings on your pizza instead of two. That is, you're going to buy the cheap thing based on whether or not you want it, without paying attention to the cost.

Quote:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html


This doesn't say what you seem to think it does. In fact, it explicitly refutes the idea that MMOs are dominated by younger players and argues that they have a diverse market with lots of older players. And it has nothing to do with your disposable income claim that I asked for sources for.

Quote:
The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute.


WTF? Are you completely incapable of maintaining a consistent argument without constantly moving the goalposts? Your original claim was that "18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income", not that the average age is around that range. In fact, there's a very obvious explanation here: $15 a month is cheap regardless of age, but younger players tend to have more time available. Both the 19 year old college student and the 30 year old with a successful career have more than enough discretionary income available to play an MMO, but the 30 year old is more likely to have kids or similar time commitments that make playing an MMO less appealing regardless of the subscription price.

Quote:
Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic.


No, it's an entirely reasonable idea for many demographics. The simple fact is that, for purchases that are sufficiently cheap, we don't even look at the price tag. If you're making $100k/year as a single adult you normally don't bother looking at the prices on the menu when you go out for dinner. Unless something is vastly out of proportion to the rest of the menu you're just going to order whatever you feel like eating at the moment, and you're not going to care at all about that $1-2 difference in price between the various options.

A similar principle applies to EVE. If you've got enough money to pay for a nice computer, fast internet, etc, to be able to play EVE at all you're probably in a position where $15/month is a very small percentage of your discretionary income and a small cost relative to your other entertainment purchases. Whether EVE costs $10/month or $15/month is going to be much less important to you than whether or not you're interested in playing EVE at all.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#24 - 2017-05-05 05:46:11 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Subscribe and get access to everything.

Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing.



Ok?
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#25 - 2017-05-05 05:51:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Merin Ryskin
hog butter wrote:
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.


EVE has grown and thrived just fine with a $15/month subscription price and no free option once your trial ended, as have plenty of other games with $15/month subscription prices. The primary barrier to entry for new players is the fact that EVE is unappologetically a niche-market game that does not compromise its core identity for mass appeal. No matter what subscription price EVE has it will always have fewer potential customers than a game like WoW.

And, I've said it before but I'll say it again: I think it's very revealing that most of the "buff alpha accounts" proposals are coming from veterans, not new customers trying to get into the game. The primary driving force behind those proposals is very clearly "let me play for free forever without sacrificing anything", preferably with a horde of alt accounts.
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#26 - 2017-05-05 05:54:59 UTC
hog butter wrote:



Ok?
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.


Her/His attitude is just fine, not long ago there was a nullsec entity that kept highsec mercs and their allies mostly at bay for quite a spell......using yep you guessed it Alpha accounts.

Now imagine their Hurricane fleet doctrines used in that way? lunacy.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#27 - 2017-05-05 06:19:38 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about with 90% of this, but it has nothing to do with alpha clones or subscription costs. MMO addiction is a sad thing, but most players are not in that situation.

Quote:
The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets.


What's your point? Discretionary income is discretionary income, and your original claim was that younger people have more discretionary income. You don't suddenly have less of it in total just because you decide to allocate it to something other than a video game.

And of course talking about things like buying houses only highlights my point about EVE being a trivial cost. Compared to the cost of a $300,000 house, $20,000 car, etc, $15/month is so tiny it doesn't even matter in budget calculations. If you're in a position where you're buying houses as an investment then you're going to give that $15/month about as much concern as whether or not you can afford to put three toppings on your pizza instead of two. That is, you're going to buy the cheap thing based on whether or not you want it, without paying attention to the cost.

Quote:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html


This doesn't say what you seem to think it does. In fact, it explicitly refutes the idea that MMOs are dominated by younger players and argues that they have a diverse market with lots of older players. And it has nothing to do with your disposable income claim that I asked for sources for.

Quote:
The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute.


WTF? Are you completely incapable of maintaining a consistent argument without constantly moving the goalposts? Your original claim was that "18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income", not that the average age is around that range. In fact, there's a very obvious explanation here: $15 a month is cheap regardless of age, but younger players tend to have more time available. Both the 19 year old college student and the 30 year old with a successful career have more than enough discretionary income available to play an MMO, but the 30 year old is more likely to have kids or similar time commitments that make playing an MMO less appealing regardless of the subscription price.

Quote:
Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic.


No, it's an entirely reasonable idea for many demographics. The simple fact is that, for purchases that are sufficiently cheap, we don't even look at the price tag. If you're making $100k/year as a single adult you normally don't bother looking at the prices on the menu when you go out for dinner. Unless something is vastly out of proportion to the rest of the menu you're just going to order whatever you feel like eating at the moment, and you're not going to care at all about that $1-2 difference in price between the various options.

A similar principle applies to EVE. If you've got enough money to pay for a nice computer, fast internet, etc, to be able to play EVE at all you're probably in a position where $15/month is a very small percentage of your discretionary income and a small cost relative to your other entertainment purchases. Whether EVE costs $10/month or $15/month is going to be much less important to you than whether or not you're interested in playing EVE at all.


Due the fact I can only quote 5 times let me break this down to you as succinct as possible.

This is all related 18-24 has to do with the highest disposable income this is a function of the percentage spent of net income so you linking me something about discretionary income is cute but has nothing to do with what I said. Here is a link to a youtube that explains the two: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s I am not sure why you said and I quoted something I didn't say so....

Your entire rest of your argument has to do with opportunity costs. Opportunity costs in short is the cost of NOT doing something. Gaming has many costs associated with it and opportunity costs are high and this includes time which is the major hidden cost as outlined twice before. Of course older people can pay 15/month but they have more demands on their time and less time in general (going to die soon). This why they will not try a new MMO even if they have the money and interest. The that market research firm was saying that 26 is an rise that was larger that anticipated this has no bearing on any argument not sure why you brought it up. The 30 year comment refer back to the article you posted like I said read it thoroughly. The idea that people with certain incomes don't look at prices or only notice ones that are a certain standard deviation from normal is something that happens but would be filled as anecdotal evidence if you showed this to market research companies. Ultra rich people have accountants and personal shoppers and everyone else has a budget and if you saying that you don't have someone looking at spending for you means little.

I think your smart and have a bunch of energy don't take this the wrong way but their are a bunch of great books on https://librivox.org/ some of them explain micro economics and consumer behavior. Youtube has great pod casters that break this sort of stuff but the best resources is the financial times. I welcome your discourse however I have to go play EVE before I get sleepy.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#28 - 2017-05-05 06:35:34 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Max Deveron wrote:
hog butter wrote:



Ok?
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.


Her/His attitude is just fine, not long ago there was a nullsec entity that kept highsec mercs and their allies mostly at bay for quite a spell......using yep you guessed it Alpha accounts.

Now imagine their Hurricane fleet doctrines used in that way? lunacy.



So because their is abuse throw the baby out with the bath water or in your estimation their is no baby?

Let me also say I don't care about abusing ALPHA ban multiple instances of the game running from a single I.P. I don't care. I don't abuse the game I white Knight for new players all you jaded salty care-bears hate their guts because they didn't have it as bad as you boohoo. Not you guys of course just every time I say anything other then draw and quarter Alpha clones I get flack from a bunch of the same people. I even suggest ideas that give Omegas more advantages they fall on largely deaf ears.

Maybe just ban new players randomly delete Alpha accounts or something.

I guess this is how all you got so jaded.
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#29 - 2017-05-05 06:40:42 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Not really. $15/month is a trivial cost for most players who can afford the computer/internet/etc to play EVE at all. The actual situation is a pretty binary split between people who are kind of interested in playing EVE but not enough to commit financially to it and people who know they like EVE and are willing to pay. Once you cross that barrier of paying for the game at all I don't think there's a meaningful difference between $10/month and $15/month.

Not everyone lives in a first world country. 15$ a month can be a lot of money to certain demographics.


hog butter wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game?


are you afraid alpha clones are going to mess with your pretty little space ships you spent so much money on?

People that don't pay have no rights to any expectations. It's that simple. Developing and running the game costs money and CCP is a for-profit company, not a charity.
The absolutely last thing we want and need is the infestation of the common "free to play" crowd. Free to play games are more often than not littered with artificial time gates and paywalls and hide their enormous costs behind microtransactions.

There's a small subset of players that never buy anything in those games, but they usually burn out fast and move on to the next "free to play" game, where the cycle repeats.
Then there's the subset of players who safe their money for quite a while to then waste it on said game for "that one boost" that's going to help them so much. Not.
And then you have the kind of player that's buying microtransaction after microtransaction and is effectively paying up to hundreds of Euros each month for their pathetic money-milking game.

The developers of Free to Play games don't care about the health of their game. All they're concerned with is pumping out more micro-transactions to lure the dumb with and milk them just a little more, again and again, until they finished their next "free to play" game to start the cycle anew.

EVE isn't a free-to-play game, it's a subscription-based game. CCP need only concern themselves with the players paying a subscription, not the ones that want to enjoy the game without paying for it. If they make any balance changes to alphas, then those have only to happen to avoid abuse by omega players, not to give the dumb, entitled free-to-play crowd more stuff.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#30 - 2017-05-05 06:48:26 UTC
hog butter wrote:
This is all related 18-24 has to do with the highest disposable income this is a function of the percentage spent of net income so you linking me something about discretionary income is cute but has nothing to do with what I said. Here is a link to a youtube that explains the two: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s I am not sure why you said and I quoted something I didn't say so....


WTF are you going on about? The article I gave you shows the actual money available, not whatever weird percentage of net income you're talking about. The indisputable fact here is that 18-24 year olds have the lowest disposable income, with the peak disposable income happening in the 40-50 year old range and disposable income not declining to the level of the 18-24 year olds until after retirement age.

Quote:
Your entire rest of your argument has to do with opportunity costs. Opportunity costs in short is the cost of NOT doing something.


Yes, and those opportunity costs are the primary factor here. $15/month is a very small price to pay if you actually enjoy EVE. The time commitment, however, is not. Most of the people who won't pay $15/month for EVE wouldn't play it if it cost $1/month.

Quote:
Of course older people can pay 15/month but they have more demands on their time and less time in general (going to die soon).


Now you get it! Not having time is a huge issue! But it's an issue that has nothing to do with the subscription price. Lowering subscription prices or giving more power to alpha accounts does not magically give people more hours to play EVE.

Quote:
Ultra rich people have accountants and personal shoppers and everyone else has a budget and if you saying that you don't have someone looking at spending for you means little.


Oh FFS, yes, people have a budget, but you keep missing the point. When an item takes up an incredibly small percentage of your budget small differences in its price are less important than whether you want to buy it at all. If you're at a restaurant the difference between a $10 meal and an $11 meal is, assuming you have a decent income, trivial compared to the question of whether you want the chicken or the fish. You're going to buy the meal you want to eat at that moment, and not waste time worrying about the small difference in price.

And yes, EVE is that kind of small purchase. For example, all of my other hobbies are way more expensive than EVE. Airplane rentals cost $75/hour, which puts the $15 cost of my EVE account at about the same price as doing the pre-flight checks and taxiing out to the runway. Miniatures games (40k, X-Wing) cost $15-50 for a single model kit, up to $1-200 or more. New camera lenses cost $2-300 or more. Those are major purchases that dominate my budget considerations. Keeping my EVE account is just a minor rounding error in comparison. If I want to play it I keep it active, if I'm not interested anymore I cancel the subscription. Dropping the price from $15 to $10 would make absolutely no difference in that decision.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#31 - 2017-05-05 06:56:43 UTC
Linus Gorp wrote:
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Not really. $15/month is a trivial cost for most players who can afford the computer/internet/etc to play EVE at all. The actual situation is a pretty binary split between people who are kind of interested in playing EVE but not enough to commit financially to it and people who know they like EVE and are willing to pay. Once you cross that barrier of paying for the game at all I don't think there's a meaningful difference between $10/month and $15/month.

Not everyone lives in a first world country. 15$ a month can be a lot of money to certain demographics.


hog butter wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game?


are you afraid alpha clones are going to mess with your pretty little space ships you spent so much money on?

People that don't pay have no rights to any expectations. It's that simple. Developing and running the game costs money and CCP is a for-profit company, not a charity.
The absolutely last thing we want and need is the infestation of the common "free to play" crowd. Free to play games are more often than not littered with artificial time gates and paywalls and hide their enormous costs behind microtransactions.

There's a small subset of players that never buy anything in those games, but they usually burn out fast and move on to the next "free to play" game, where the cycle repeats.
Then there's the subset of players who safe their money for quite a while to then waste it on said game for "that one boost" that's going to help them so much. Not.
And then you have the kind of player that's buying microtransaction after microtransaction and is effectively paying up to hundreds of Euros each month for their pathetic money-milking game.

The developers of Free to Play games don't care about the health of their game. All they're concerned with is pumping out more micro-transactions to lure the dumb with and milk them just a little more, again and again, until they finished their next "free to play" game to start the cycle anew.

EVE isn't a free-to-play game, it's a subscription-based game. CCP need only concern themselves with the players paying a subscription, not the ones that want to enjoy the game without paying for it. If they make any balance changes to alphas, then those have only to happen to avoid abuse by omega players, not to give the dumb, entitled free-to-play crowd more stuff.



I agree with this mostly however I don't agree that their are Subscription players and Non-Subscription players I bet many Alpha's will have been Doormat Omega's pre-Alpha clone. I know that at least I am and I will add money and buy stuff from CCP. I will spend more money on healthy game. EVE seams to have a bunch of players that don't care about new players and in turn makes me likley to invest less in EVE. I am worried when this many players seem to hate Alpha's with no reason other then lets all hate CCP's new idea because they did something else we didn't like. I think it is interesting Carebear has entered the EVE lexicon because this seems to be an apt description of many Subscribed players.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#32 - 2017-05-05 07:04:08 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
I'm not sure if your trolling me at this point but if you are kudos.

Discretionary DOES NOT EQUAL Disposable. I only linked a youtube video explaining the difference educate yourself.

With that I'm sure the rest of your post is as well thought out and articulate as the previous ones. I laughed from start to finish I intend on reading it someday.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#33 - 2017-05-05 07:39:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
hog butter wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Subscribe and get access to everything.

Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing.



Ok?
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.

How does allowing people to play for free drive off new players anymore than the pre-alpha situation where people couldn't play at all without subscribing?

Also, lots of people use think of the children arguments, but very few (near none) are able to actually show any factual basis for their claims. Is that the same here? How does play a limited version of EVE for free, or the full experience via subscription, drive away new players?
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#34 - 2017-05-05 07:55:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
hog butter wrote:
I think it is interesting Carebear has entered the EVE lexicon because this seems to be an apt description of many Subscribed players.

Because it's true. Just have a peek inside the stickied afk cloaky thread in this sub-forum.

Quote:
however I don't agree that their are Subscription players and Non-Subscription players I bet many Alpha's will have been Doormat Omega's pre-Alpha clone.

I, too, have a ton of alpha clones for various reasons, but every character I use to actually play the game with is an omega. I'm paying my subscription and expect to get all the content for it, just like it has been the case for almost 14 years now (EVE turns 14 tomorrow).
Unless I'm playing with one of my spy alphas (and lie about not paying a sub), I am a subscription player and expect to see the same perks I got since I started playing this scrapheap of a game in beta.
I pay to keep the game running and for the devs to add content for me and other subscribers, not to give entitled millennials their free access.

Non-subscribers aren't paying the bills that make the server hamsters do their rounds. Subscribers do, and subscribers expect to get their moneys' worth.
Alpha clones are just a trial version to try the game with and coerce you into subscribing and they should not ever be more than that, or it will be abused by vets and china botters alike.

Quote:
EVE seams to have a bunch of players that don't care about new players and in turn makes me likley to invest less in EVE. I am worried when this many players seem to hate Alpha's with no reason other then lets all hate CCP's new idea because they did something else we didn't like.

Only a handful of vets genuinely hate new players. What most of us hate is the entitlement mindset, the crying for more stuff and the "I don't like this, please change" crying all over the place.
I enjoy playing with new players as long as they accept the game the way it is. If they want it changed to suit their playstyle at the cost of others, then EVE isn't the right game for them and they wouldn't stick around anyway. Appealing to that crowd is a waste of resources and will result in alienating loyal customers.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2017-05-05 10:56:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
Interesting reading this thread, there is an assumption that is not supported with any data (that CCP have and we don't) that alpha players are of no financial benefit to CCP whatsoever.

That is not just a weak assumption, it is unlikely to be true.

subscriptions are just ONE way CCP get money.

never seen a month old player in a blingy ship?

That aside, CCP appears to have found an imaginative way to bring players in that is more effective than trials. For all of our sakes, we should hope it is a success and those players hang around filling space, and sometimes giving CCP money.

I agree the skill restrictions are not perfect, and CCP may well add one time purchases of Beta, Gamma, etc with different restrictions players can grow into without paying a subscription.

Alternatively, New space may have more opportunities for them (there is a thread in this forum about exactly that) or an alteration in the PVE becomes available to make it more alpha friendly. Not Every alpha wants to be tackle or bait in PVP. There is little practical progression for alphas in PVP. Not everyone is a CCP rise or has his abilities and knowledge of the game.

The most natural space for new Alphas starting is poisioned ground due to wardecs, not because they kill worthless ships, but because they actively discourage new players joining together, and when the only sane alternative is Null, that is a step too far for many.
It is hardly surprising many do not hang around to be seen as what in THEIR eyes is to be a victim. Talk to a few, and you will be horrified.

NO ONE chooses to play a game to be a victim.

We kill many in WH, usually reimburse them, and talk about their experiences, most are not salty, just very disillusioned by their other experiences, they do not mind being killed in the main, but many have experienced having joined corps and being farmed, and so are now flying alone and somewhat lost, having vowed never to have that experience again.
They are the tough ones, most don't get that far.

The greedy Asshats even wardec signal cartel, what the hell is THAT about. Once you do that EVERY excuse and justification for wardecs is in the dumpster.

So yes, Alphas need more that is practical to do, without Omegas choosing alpha state as a free option with no downside.

There is a balance to be reached, and complaints it is a slippery slope are simply assuming CCP are incompetent and suicidal.

That is clearly not the case.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2017-05-05 16:58:00 UTC
1: I see 4 options here
- give everyone everything (the laziest, but would work)
- let Caldari and Amarr keep their current skills, while give Gallente and Minmatar target painting AND sensor dampening while removing ECM and weapon disruption (faction alliance based, lore-wise makes sense)
- each faction should only have it's own faction EWAR, except web and scram (generally makes the most sense to me)
- remove the EWAR skills from alpha clones, except web and scram (also lazy, but would work)

2: I like the idea of making special haulers require level 2 skill, personally I would give them to ORE as they are the "industry pirates", I think most industrialists wouldn't feel too much difference

3: BCs maybe, but with battleships it would become too easy to plex themselves

4: sorry, but no - even if I wouldn't mind removing the faction restrictions, which would also fix the first 2 problems listed here, pirate ships should stay omega only

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#37 - 2017-05-05 17:13:53 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Scipio Artelius wrote:
hog butter wrote:
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Subscribe and get access to everything.

Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing.



Ok?
I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.

How does allowing people to play for free drive off new players anymore than the pre-alpha situation where people couldn't play at all without subscribing?

Also, lots of people use think of the children arguments, but very few (near none) are able to actually show any factual basis for their claims. Is that the same here? How does play a limited version of EVE for free, or the full experience via subscription, drive away new players?


If you read what I have said that isn't my argument. I am not sure how to address this then go ahead and re-read the posts. With that said I think your asking me to prove that alpha's are driven off by a limited form of Alpha.

So this all started with the crippling of haulers industrial ship command skills for alpha's are capped at 1. This means if you have any inclination to haul your stuck with your faction haulers with the lowest agility the ship can have as per your skill. If you are a new player go to an agent start doing distribution missions. You may enjoy this part of the game and try to do it for ISK as a career via contracts or market speculation. Then you hit your first gate camp you have no ability NO ability to crash it. You have tech 1 warp core stabilizers tech 1 shield fittings and ship command capped at 1. You are a sitting duck. Say you ship with valuables gone and a large percentage of your net worth in cargo and a new ship that equals and Alpha that most likely not continue. If you want actual proof beyond this you asking me to give you statistics that CCP doesn't make public. I can point to recruiting efforts by CCP and a declining population of tranquility over the last couple years. My point is Alphas should have a good gaming experience and saying Omega's will abuse Alpha clones is a weak argument. If that is true then their needs to be better controls on whatever abuse is going to unfold by giving Alphas a good experience.
Dior Ambraelle
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2017-05-05 17:19:39 UTC
Merin Ryskin wrote:
The primary barrier to entry for new players is the fact that EVE is unappologetically a niche-market game that does not compromise its core identity for mass appeal. No matter what subscription price EVE has it will always have fewer potential customers than a game like WoW.

I think the problem here isn't simply the "nicheness" of the game, but also the marketing and the game's reputation.
When people talk about EVE, they call it "spreadsheet simulator" or the game where the learning curve is a brick wall that you supposed to break with your head. The NPE helps a bit though, at least new players now get a rope - even if it's a bit short - to climb the wall.
I don't know how often does CCP appear on general gaming conventions, but maybe being more visible would help to get new players.
Also, it would probably help if they would stop selling their souls to SONY! Dust was an interesting idea, that I would liked to try if I wouldn't need to buy a PS to do that. Valkyrie is basically a space simulator that people dreaming about since... 30 years? Or is it 50? I'm honestly surprised that it's not going to be a PS exclusive.

If you want an intelligent argument, please do, I'm up for it!

But if you want a trolling contest, I will win it by simply not participating.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#39 - 2017-05-05 17:26:45 UTC
Alderson Point wrote:
Interesting reading this thread, there is an assumption that is not supported with any data (that CCP have and we don't) that alpha players are of no financial benefit to CCP whatsoever.

That is not just a weak assumption, it is unlikely to be true.

subscriptions are just ONE way CCP get money.

never seen a month old player in a blingy ship?

That aside, CCP appears to have found an imaginative way to bring players in that is more effective than trials. For all of our sakes, we should hope it is a success and those players hang around filling space, and sometimes giving CCP money.

I agree the skill restrictions are not perfect, and CCP may well add one time purchases of Beta, Gamma, etc with different restrictions players can grow into without paying a subscription.

Alternatively, New space may have more opportunities for them (there is a thread in this forum about exactly that) or an alteration in the PVE becomes available to make it more alpha friendly. Not Every alpha wants to be tackle or bait in PVP. There is little practical progression for alphas in PVP. Not everyone is a CCP rise or has his abilities and knowledge of the game.

The most natural space for new Alphas starting is poisioned ground due to wardecs, not because they kill worthless ships, but because they actively discourage new players joining together, and when the only sane alternative is Null, that is a step too far for many.
It is hardly surprising many do not hang around to be seen as what in THEIR eyes is to be a victim. Talk to a few, and you will be horrified.

NO ONE chooses to play a game to be a victim.

We kill many in WH, usually reimburse them, and talk about their experiences, most are not salty, just very disillusioned by their other experiences, they do not mind being killed in the main, but many have experienced having joined corps and being farmed, and so are now flying alone and somewhat lost, having vowed never to have that experience again.
They are the tough ones, most don't get that far.

The greedy Asshats even wardec signal cartel, what the hell is THAT about. Once you do that EVERY excuse and justification for wardecs is in the dumpster.

So yes, Alphas need more that is practical to do, without Omegas choosing alpha state as a free option with no downside.

There is a balance to be reached, and complaints it is a slippery slope are simply assuming CCP are incompetent and suicidal.

That is clearly not the case.



Wow I agree with all of what you said. You are asset to this game and I hope you continue to help educate other EVE players with a lack antagonism I fail to maintain.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#40 - 2017-05-05 18:24:03 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:

Oh FFS, yes, people have a budget, but you keep missing the point. When an item takes up an incredibly small percentage of your budget small differences in its price are less important than whether you want to buy it at all. If you're at a restaurant the difference between a $10 meal and an $11 meal is, assuming you have a decent income, trivial compared to the question of whether you want the chicken or the fish. You're going to buy the meal you want to eat at that moment, and not waste time worrying about the small difference in price.

And yes, EVE is that kind of small purchase. For example, all of my other hobbies are way more expensive than EVE. Airplane rentals cost $75/hour, which puts the $15 cost of my EVE account at about the same price as doing the pre-flight checks and taxiing out to the runway. Miniatures games (40k, X-Wing) cost $15-50 for a single model kit, up to $1-200 or more. New camera lenses cost $2-300 or more. Those are major purchases that dominate my budget considerations. Keeping my EVE account is just a minor rounding error in comparison. If I want to play it I keep it active, if I'm not interested anymore I cancel the subscription. Dropping the price from $15 to $10 would make absolutely no difference in that decision.



I understand the value argument your making. The restaurant metaphor is agreeable to me and consistent with what I have been saying. The origin of the argument is earlier in the thread someone was saying that people will either pay $15/month or $0/month people spend in "binary" terms which is ridiculous (if true their would be no concept of up-selling which is HUGE in service industry).

So lets break this down, I was illustrating a point that everyone budgets and if 5 dollar difference in subscription price will not break you that's great for you. This isn't true for your average player because often don't have large incomes and they have no vested interest in the game unless played before. They will look at the purchase as possibly money thrown down the drain. So they maybe able to afford 5 dollar difference but they don't weight the value derived from the 5 dollars the same way you may. You have played the game and you know you enjoy it. With that said CCP if successful may get many subscription players to pay over 15/dollars per month. Maybe not every month but players may buy things from CCP and subscribe.

The concept your addressing is called utility. Utility is the often misunderstood idea and revolves around a concept of diminishing returns. The age old example of this is pizza to a hungry person who likes pizza. First slice you gain much utility the second slice you eat less utility and eve less for the third. The idea of the utility lowering every slice is known as diminishing return of utility or the law of diminishing returns.

EVE utility is derived from enjoyment of the game and this maybe directly linked to your ability to spend time reaching a utility threshold (opportunity costs in time to pass threshold) which includes but not limited to the right time zone, playing a particular roll in a corp, or ability get to a computer that is EVE capable. These all require an additional costs of time to gain the utility your seeking. These costs are unique to EVE and don't apply to your Warhammer or flying engagements and vise versa.

So it's foolish to say EVE shouldn't lower their prices because 5 dollars doesn't mean anything to me. All the same its foolish to say because EVE is only 15/month people can easily afford this low cost (not accounting for costs of time spent playing to reach the threshold in which utility is derived).

Say the average new player to EVE is the industry standard of 26 most likely its older but lets suspend disbelief. The average new player will have a limited income and they may spend a large percentage of their income on entertainment. If all that is given 5 dollars will not mean much in a single transaction however say the average player is poor one month. Well we have to drop EVE subscription. Say they pick up a free to play or single purchase game. EVE may not see that player re-subscribe for a while maybe months or never.

So CCP is saying guess what just cause your poor one month or cannot afford the additional time costs you may still login to your account and play a diminished version of EVE. I think this idea is bully and the only reason your reading this because I am poor and right now cannot afford EVE subscription!

At this point if your reading these posts you will have a rudimentary understanding of micro economics.