These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-01-27 04:46
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-04-07 16:04
  • Likes Received: 0

Liang Nuren

Security Status -1.9
  • No Salvation Member since
  • Top Belt for Fun Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Winter Archipelago wrote:

    You're reacting as if the game is going P2W just because the trial accounts are becoming time-unrestricted. That isn't the case. EVE is, has always been, and will still be, Pay-to-play. Having time-unrestricted trial accounts doesn't magically make the game suddenly become P2W.
    ...
    Time-unrestricted trial accounts do not suddenly make a Pay-to-Play game become a Pay-to-Win game.


    I want to address this on two fronts: the factual nature of your claim that Eve Online will be pay to play after the change, and then move back to the obvious goals of this move.

    Obviously, removing the time limit on the trial means - definitionally - that the game is no longer pay to play. People can log in, run missions, shoot people, bullshit in local, build things, mine, and more all without paying a subscription. And they can do that forever. Additionally, CCP Seagull herself talkd up how people can "play the game for free" (I believe that's actually a direct quote). There is no possible way to justify a claim that the game is pay to play once this rolls out.

    Furthermore, this move has obvious goals: to increase new player adoption and to bring old players back to the game. New player adoption is fairly straight forward: we want more warm bodies in game. The single server sandbox nature of Eve Online makes it such that every person who logs in and does something in the game makes the game better for every other person. It doesn't even really matter whether they're missioning, mining, plexing, hauling, or PVPing - they are interacting with other players. In a very real sense, if this move is successful there will be a lot of these new players floating around.

    Returning players is also relatively straight forward - but very different. These players return to the game and provide social interactions with established players. This increases retention for established paying players, but also increases the probability that the returning player will convert to a paying account again. As a nice side effect to this, Hours for Plex will be disappearing, which should help the petition queue times. ;-)

    All things considered, I'm relatively less concerned about returning players worrying about pay to win. With them I'm concerned that they won't be able to evac null sec where they live or undock their mission BS to make more money, and the conversion bid will be unsuccessful. It's the new players that really concern me - people who have an established understanding of the term free to play. People who are going to realize that it doesn't matter how well they train or how well the fly or how many years they've played when their clone is so limited that they fundamentally cannot ever be competitive. The game won't be pay to play from that perspective. It's pay to win.


    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Tyberius Franklin wrote:

    Why avoid this? Because alternatives are a true F2P/P2W game with literally distinct classes. I'm not sure why you want to turn the disadvantages class into anything other than a stepping stone for those that intend to stay while citing variance in ability as a reason. It's wholly contradictory.


    The rest of your post is less important than this, so I'll just answer this. See, the thing about Eve is that it's a single server sandbox and every player that logs in and undocks enriches it for every other. It doesn't even really matter whether they're mining, missioning, plexing, or PVPing - they've enriched the game by taking part in it. Thus, having alpha players who aren't willing to spend money but are willing to play is a net win because it improves my game.

    However, I'm not merely looking at it from my perspective. I'm also looking at it from a cold business perspective. CCP's goals have always been (and will continue to be): higher DAUs, higher retention, and ultimately higher revenue.

    DAU measures how many people log into the game every day. However, what might be more interesting how many people undock on any given day - because the majority of interactions with the game happen when someone is undocked. That is, the person isn't playing Skill Queues Online.

    Retention measures how long someone will continue to play (or pay for!) the game. Eve's always been pretty sticky once people cross certain boundaries, so I'm less concerned about this (except for the undocking part mentioned above). While this isn't particularly relevant to Eve yet, it's been shown in other F2P games that there's always a chance for someone to convert as long as they continue to play a game.

    Now, consider the following: alpha accounts drive DAU (and thus player interactions), have their own retention scores (and probability for conversion), and influence the retention of omega accounts via social ties. Thus, we can't treat alphas as merely a stepping stone to omegas. Thus, a fully fledged F2P Eve experience should have a free tier that is fundamentally playable. It doesn't have all the options, but you at least need to be able to compete in some areas of the game.

    And yes, I've worked in F2P gaming for several years now.

    -Liang

    Ed: I very nearly went off on a very long explanation of many F2P concepts and how the data and numbers behind them form a viable business model. Be glad I restricted myself to DAU and retention, because I almost went off on ARPU and ARPPU and how driving ARPPU gives the F2P industry a bad name!

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Tyberius Franklin wrote:

    The point wasn't to argue anything as far as specifics, it just picked off of a point you stated and worked from there in place of any broad set of capabilities that would make Alphas something other than long term trials or unsubbed low tier sit ins. And 50/50 splits on a F2P is extremely generous of you I believe.


    I'm actually pretty skeptical that allowing people fly up to to T1 cruisers competently is a big enough draw to get even a 50/50 split, so I'm surprised you'd think that there'd be way more people flying alpha. Why? What content are they going to be doing?

    Quote:

    Most importantly none of what you suggest will eliminate the core of the issue of new players being obliterated. What will soon be omega accounts have been putting up with it for 13 years due to it being a function of competence and the progression system. If instant competitiveness is a desired function making everyone free Omegas would still fail to resolve it.


    I disagree. I've seen many new players grow into monster PVPers without spending 13 years doing it. However, they did require far more combat SP than is being allowed on alpha clones. The offering that's currently suggested has alpha players doing less than half of the DPS of an omega in the same ship. There's literally no way for them to be competitive, which means there's no way to get hooked on the game.

    The alpha clone really must be improved, and if alphas suicide ganking and such are such a big problem then suicide ganking itself is the problem.

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Tyberius Franklin wrote:

    I'm going with the extension to battleships you mentioned, so we're talking about the entirety of the T1 combat lineup in that hypothetical. And I'm sure a fair set of accounts could do without higher tier ships if it means freeing up real money or time spent earning PLEX.

    That aside this reads at this point like a reaction without a benefit. The biggest part of the issue with the direction you'd take this is keeping the value of Omegas, especially in relation to alt account Omegas (even skill goop funded Omegas consume paid resources incentivizing further real money purchases). Worse you eliminated a large driver to move to Omega accounts. Further you've exasperated the P2W issue by making alphas the norm, which makes Omegas that much for visible as a paid advantage class rather than the method of intended long term play.

    So you've cut into your current income, offered no dependable replacement and made the P2W perception more prevalent to pander to the clickbait musings of game news. Still not sold on this being a good strategy.

    Worse I'm worried about it backfiring and more cost becomes heaped upon fewer Omega players.


    I'm not willing to argue about whether or not battleships and battlecruisers should be allowed on alpha clones when the simple fact of the matter is that the current offering will backfire as a terrible uncompelling F2P experience (at best) and pure P2W (at worst). An alpha account going into a novice plex is going to be obliterated by any paying player. There's just no way to be competitive or get a feel for the game when paying players do 2x the DPS and have 50% more EHP than you do in the same ship.

    You're absolutely right. With my plan things would shift to 50/50 or more alpha players logged in - but I bet there's way more than 2x the people logged in. With yours, I imagine you're totally correct. Almost everyone will be a paying player, but Eve will continue its downward PCU spiral.

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Tyberius Franklin wrote:

    At that point you're marginalizing the existence of Omega clones considerably. Especially for those who have no need of capital ship gameplay. You're also turning the program into something it's not trying to be by letting gaming press determine your development decisions.

    That last one especially seems entirely less than wise.

    If you would have alphas escalated to the de-facto play state, how would you intent to support the game?


    Well, I am making the assumption that alpha play will become either very common or the defacto play state if the F2P move is actually successful in bringing in new players. The ideal situation is that the game is compelling enough to keep them logging in while some non-trivial portion of them convert to "omega" accounts. After that, I'm sure the bright people at CCP can find some ways to monetize the free players.

    That said, I'm not sure that I'd say frigs, destroyers, and cruisers is the entirety of non-capital play. I mean, I undock BCs, BSs, T2, and T3 ships pretty frequently.

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:

    So what your trying to say now is that you would prefer CCP to do what blizzard did when the rumour mill started with there Free to Play option, Say its a free to play mode, which if you read through every single article thats been published on it its what they're saying just that the headline just like Blizzards at the time read wow's gone free to play or in our case EvE's gone free to play.

    They all love click bait, not saying it wasn't intentional from the source but nothing else in the articles infer's to it.


    No. I think the right answer is to make a full F2P play and strengthen the Alpha clones rather substantially. Non-racial ship restrictions and relatively full skills for frigates, destroyers, and cruisers - including T2 guns and support skills. I could see an argument for extending it all the way to T1 battleships if we want to try to get people into L4 missions.

    One of the interesting things about T2 and T3 ships is that their design goal was to be situationally more useful - not simply better. Thus, I feel like we can bypass the majority of "pay to win" accusations with more reasonable alpha clone limits.

    -Liang

    Ed: I would say that I'm concerned about suicide ganking, but the truth is that I'm no more concerned about suicide ganking than I am about existing suicide ganking alts. You don't exactly need a positive sec status to hop in a catalyst and fly several jumps into high sec to suicide someone.

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:

    Are you totally dense or purposely being obtuse, In every article i listed they say they have a free to play option but the game in it's entirety is still sub based and again you cherry pick snippets instead of the whole article. It would seem to a normal functioning person that the game is still sub based and that there is also a free to play option with limitations.

    Why would they mention trial now, do you know what you even said then or what it means :a product or service that is offered to customers for free for a short period of time so they can try using it. Why would they mention trial when they are offering you the alpha state that never expires RollRollRollRoll


    I'm actually wondering whether you're being dense or a CCP shill, TBH. Headline: Eve is Free to Play. People telling their friends about it: free to play. Pricetag on Steam: free to play. I'm pointing out that words have meanings, and right now those words are free to play.

    Look, I get that there are justifications and clarifications and such to be made - but right now those are taking a strong back seat to the words free to play. And when a player comes into a free to play game and realizes that the only way to compete even in the most basic way is to pay the only words that's going to come out of their mouth is pay to win.

    I'm totally down with a free to play Eve Online, but this move is branded poorly (unlimited trial) and doesn't go far enough to be actually effective (the alpha clones are way too limited).

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Here, I'll underline the parts you are consistently missing:

    Daylan Vokan wrote:

    Oh like these quotes from the larger online media pools

    "After over a decade with a straight subscription model, the massively multiplayer space RPG EVE: Online is adding a free-to-play tier. While paid accounts will still exist for new and old players alike, the new free accounts will give gamers basic access to the vast EVE universe, "New Eden."


    A free to play tier, and it will be virtually impossible to win a fight against the pay to play tier even if you manage to find them in the same ship you're in.

    Quote:

    "13-years after its launch, EVE Online is going free-to-play, developer CCP Games has announced. The new subscription-free experience is being introduced by way of a feature called "Clone States."


    Ok, sure. We're still in the same place. I'm not seeing where anything you're posting is actually disagreeing with me.

    Quote:

    Space-bastard MMO EVE Online [official site] will go free-to-play in November, devs CCP announced today. It’ll introduce a new limited character type that anyone can play for free, keeping The Good Stuff for people who pay a subscription fee. Which is probably a good way to get more people into EVE.


    Yep, more claims of free to play and not a single mention of trial accounts.

    Quote:

    So after all this hype where every single one still mentions in there articles that its still subs based but has a free option to play you still think theyre trying to dupe people .......


    I'm not saying it's deliberate. I'm saying that it's going to cause problems and can be handled better.

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:
    A new feature of the game Clone states : Alpha is free, the games business model has not altered from subscription based, get your facts straight.


    The game's business model is kinda irrelevant. Right now the entire internet is abuzz with "Eve Online goes Free to Play", not "Eve Online extends trial accounts". New players are going to walk into this with false expectations. Again, how do we manage that and prevent it from being pay to win online?

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:

    To have the "golden ammo" effect the game has to start out free i think that ship sailed 13 years ago, same BS different thread.


    The game is starting out free to new players.

    -Liang

  • Dev blog: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up in EVE Information Center

    I didn't see any reference to the fact that Eve is beginning to be marketed as free to play in the media. It's likely to be marketed the same way on Steam. How do we reconcile the fact that people are going to come in expecting free to play and find that Eve literally supports pay to win "golden ammo" (Scorch, Null, Barrage, etc). How do we reconcile the fact that paying players will do over 2x the DPS in the same ship as alpha players? How do we prevent this from smacking of pay to win, and give them a reasonable enough Eve experience to get them hooked?

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Marsha Mallow wrote:
    Liang, when was the last time you did small gang pvp in lowsec? The preferred ship I've seen in use both by friends I fly with and others I watch soloing on stream appears to be the tristan. They win fights in these ships already with a meta fit. T2 fitting does not guarantee a win. Module tiericide has made sub t2 fitting much more viable - perhaps this was part of an internal roadmap to pave the way for this change?


    Almost every night for the last 6 weeks or so? I live in the Amarr/Minnie FW zone (Amamake) with Liang, and the only alt I log into is in the Amarr FW. If you check my killboards you'll find that I spend a huge amount of time flying a T2/meta fit Executioner. The Tristan's pretty good, and I almost went with it. It's a pretty good example too. The restrictions on an alpha account will make me do 2-3x as much DPS and have 2-3x as much EHP.

    That said, I've been out of game for about a week (a bit less on one of my altS). I've been taking some time to work, replay Alpha Protocol, and watch Jessica Jones.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Andrea Cemenotar wrote:
    ok guys thing is really simple here:

    single scenario:

    you have newcommer alpha clone player, he hooks up into the game and at some point decides to.. lets say go for some low sec PvP

    so he grabs his t1 desroyer, fit it with t1 fit, maybe if was lucky to receive proper instruction he'll load it with factional ammo [he should have access to that, right?]

    so he goes to the lowsec, and is utterly anihilated by the very first assault frig he meets, or even better a tactical destroyer

    he looks up the ship that pwned him and realise that looking by numbers, that ship is superior to his - now blown to pieces t1 dessie. also he realises that he cannot use it until he pays real money [or farm for plex]

    at this point possibility of two possible outcomes can emerge:

    if he started playing game believing EvE has turned f2p, [which is possible for th moment being considering all the press forgetting actuall definitions of stuff and not-so-straight-way-of-CCP-saying-things] he WILL find it extremely p2w [let us remember we talk here about 100% fresh player with decent ability to use his brain]

    the other case - if he was for the whole time fully aware that alpha clone is nothing more than trial account wihout time limit slapped ontop of it, he won't get the wrong idea about game being p2w, will move on and is more likely to consider buying the sub on the later date to enjoy those shinier toys.

    What is really important now though is for CCP to properly accent the truth about alpha clones, before people will flock to "now-f2p-eve" only to start spewing crosss the internetz how eve is "p2w rubbish"


    This is really the crux of what I'm getting at. However, it's actually a bit worse.

    A few new players start Eve together. They've heard how much fun the game is, and they're eager to try it out. They're on alpha clones since the game just went free to play, and they're well aware of the limits they've got - T1 frigates, destroyers, and cruisers. They spend a bit of time skill training, running missions, mining, and generally seeing what the game has to offer. Then one of them has the great idea to try PVP.

    They buy some fancy meta fit Comets and do enough research to know that going into a novice plex will mean they won't get slaughtered by scary T3Ds, T3s, battlecruisers, or capitals. They find a plex with a couple of guys also in Comets. They go in. And then they get wrecked. The five of them managed to gang up and kill one of them, but overall they lost everyone. They go and look at the single killmail they got. Of course. He fit pay to win guns and pay to win ammo.

    **** this game.

    -Liang

    Ed: It's funny, but the overwhelming importance of Scorch, Barrage, and Null will make scram kiting the new pay-to-win mechanic in novice plexes.

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Malcanis wrote:

    No, they're what subscribers have always had. Regardless of the word "free" being used to describe what is factually an unlimited duration free trial, trial account restrictions don't make T2 ammo "pay to win" any more than they previously made being able to train cruiser skillbooks "pay to win".

    If CCP had originally launched the game as a free to play model and then later introduced T2 ammo (etc) as a RMT only feature, you'd have a point. That kind of sleazy bait-and-switch is exactly what gives F2P games their bad rep. But what CCP are actually doing is in effect significantly increasing the scope of the free trial offer to their game.

    No trial account players are worse off as a result of this change.
    No subscribing players are better off as a result of this change.

    You cannot therefore call it "pay to win". If you want to make an argument that people are going to call it "pay to win", then have at it, but please don't be part of the problem.


    See, I would agree with you if we want to view things from the perspective of an already paying customer. But I'm not. I'm looking at things as a new customer. And from that perspective, those ammos absolutely are pay to win. What I'm getting at is that the alpha clone isn't sufficient to bring people into the game. It needs more.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Delt0r Garsk wrote:

    As for t2, are we still beating the dead horse of "but you can't play eve without a trillion SP" Really. In FW lots of people use t1. I use t1 for plenty of things.


    I'm not asking for a trillion SP and titans. I'm saying that flying a pulse ship without Scorch or an AC ship without Barrage is silly. These are literally going to be pay to win golden ammos.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:
    Like i said before there's always someone wanting to ramp up the drama " Over a dozen times " which actually translates to 3 times ......


    If I were wanting to ramp up the drama I'd be whining about how the change will allow people to exploit the game in a thousand different ways (suicide gankinhg, mining, missions, FW, something) or how Eve is already dead. I'm not even trying to dissuade CCP from their obvious course. I'm trying to be constructive by pointing out what I perceive to be a critical flaw in the fundamental design.

    How about you?

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:
    Cherry picking snippits is quite insulting to people with half a brain too, a Feature not the game but a feature within the game. Something you don't understand ??


    Dude, seriously. The entire video was about playing Eve for free. She must say it over a dozen times in the short video. It doesn't matter how much bullshit you want to throw into this, it's still Eve Online - F2P Edition. Money says that in the Steam launcher it's going to say "Free to play" as well. There are expectations that go with that kind of term, and this violates most of them in all the ways that gets everyone upset.

    All I'm asking for is that the game doesn't immediately come of tasting like pay to win - because right now it's going to.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Daylan Vokan wrote:
    Liang Nuren wrote:
    Andrea Cemenotar wrote:

    [if gaming press was even remotely as decent nowaday as it used to in the past, the titles would be "EvE Online removes time limit from trial accounts"]


    No, that's actually on CCP. They spent a lot of time talking about playing Eve for free, not about removing time limits on trial accounts or buffing trial accounts. Can't blame the gaming press for that one - a cursory listen to Seagull's video and read of the blog is definitely making everyone (both here and in the gaming media) use the words free to play. It's almost like they wanted to see the media boost but didn't want to actually use the words.

    -Liang

    Maybe you ought to listen to what seagull actually said, We would like to introduce a new feature to eve that allows both old and new players to take part in eve for free. Without messing with the base model that eve always has been a subscription model game we want everyone to be able to play and with this we have developed Clone States.

    Nowhere in the video or Blog does it infer that the game is free but that they have introduced a new feature Alpha state with all its blurb that allows free play and can be upgraded.


    I want to be very clear about something: I'm totally fine with this happening. Hell, I even support Eve pushing in the F2P direction some, because obviously what they're doing isn't working as well as they'd like. But let's make sure we're all on the same footing. I'll copy/paste your text and underline the parts you apparently forgot to read:

    CCP Seagull wrote:

    We would like to introduce a new feature to eve that allows both old and new players to take part in eve for free. Without messing with the base model that eve always has been a subscription model game we want everyone to be able to play and with this we have developed Clone States.


    Don't insult everyone's intelligence by claiming this isn't a free to play move - it is. I'm just concerned that the consequences for doing it half assed will give them the worst of all possible worlds. It'll offend existing players who are virulently anti-F2P and not provide enough of a carrot to convince free players they'd like to stick around. In particular, the extremely limited scope of alpha clones makes even the parts of the game that they can actually interact with feel very much like pay to win.

    As it stands, this change won't be that attractive to new players - especially ones who've been around the block a couple of times. Instead, this change is going to be mostly used by existing players. Which is a crying shame, because Eve needs new paying players.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Winter Archipelago wrote:

    In fewer words, it takes the pressure off new players from having to join while they're still learning. For many, many people (I would hazard to say most), having to make a pressured decision about whether or not to money on a luxury will almost always result in them not spending the money. This takes that pressure away while increasing exposure. Even if it doesn't increase the number of incoming newbies, I strongly believe that it will increase the conversion rates of those who do come.


    I'm not saying CCP shouldn't make a move like this. I'm saying the way they're making it is critically flawed and doomed to failure.

    -Liang

  • Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE in EVE Information Center

    Andrea Cemenotar wrote:

    [if gaming press was even remotely as decent nowaday as it used to in the past, the titles would be "EvE Online removes time limit from trial accounts"]


    No, that's actually on CCP. They spent a lot of time talking about playing Eve for free, not about removing time limits on trial accounts or buffing trial accounts. Can't blame the gaming press for that one - a cursory listen to Seagull's video and read of the blog is definitely making everyone (both here and in the gaming media) use the words free to play. It's almost like they wanted to see the media boost but didn't want to actually use the words.

    -Liang

Forum Signature

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.