These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Any skin on any ship - bug on SiSi - yes we could have skins on ships

First post First post First post
Author
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#41 - 2015-05-01 18:55:50 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
#42 - 2015-05-01 18:55:58 UTC
TFW the most popular feature in your expansion is a bug.
Memphis Baas
#43 - 2015-05-01 19:07:34 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
TFW the most popular feature in your expansion is a bug.


Give us universal skins, CCP!
Dradis Aulmais
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2015-05-01 19:07:39 UTC



It time to burn Jita.

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2015-05-01 19:11:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Teinyhr wrote:
I'm not sure what started this myth? Is this someones original research through average players logged in or something or did anyone credible from CCP actually give this figure, ever?

Leaks, online numbers, and a historical close correlation between subs and activity.

Nothing official was ever said, but then again, nothing official could be said without people being slapped very hard for leaking critical proprietary financial information. The 10% number was cited through unofficial channels some time around september '11, about a month before the 20% layoffs.

Really, the 10% number seems a bit conservative in hindsight, all things considered. Not that it matters whether it was 10% or 20%. What mattered was that CCP had already started to bleed customers heavily after their PvE-centric expansion (to no-one's surprise — all PvE expansions for MMOs have exhibited the same behaviour), and were up for a refinancing round for their other projects. Their need to demonstrate good potentials for profit in the near future coincided with sagging interest (and most likely a slip in active accounts) followed by two or three PR disasters and IP fumbles, and then a sharp decline in the company's singular income source. It's hard to imagine a worse timing of events. When Incarna was a spectacular flop for half a dozen reasons and the customer decline turned into a (relative) free-fall with double-digit losses in just one or two months, CCP had to do something to make the investors… well… invest. Scuttling seemingly dead-end projects and doing exactly what their customers were asking for was the only way out.

So it was probably less than 20%, since the layoffs wouldn't have created sufficient margin to bump the book numbers otherwise, and it was probably not less than 10%, based on both the unofficial accounts and the effects seen on the game activity.
Mane Frehm
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#46 - 2015-05-01 19:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Mane Frehm
Don't normally comment on stuff like this, but what the heck I have the time today so here are a few quick thoughts:


Do SKINs confer any in game advantage? No they don't - thank God CCP has learned that lesson.

So then what is the issue here? Appears to be that new functionality for artwork can be applied far more generally (ie to many ships) than has previously been thought possible with the 1 skin per ship type model. CCP has now raised the issue of possible performance issues and although some folks are discounting that, I can tell you emphatically that in legacy code, stuff that appears to have no rational basis for impacting performance can do so. So if CCP has said this, lets cut them some slack.

Moving on.....

CCPs goal as a company is to maximize value for their owners/shareholders. I have no issues with this (and anyone who does is living in lala land), especially given that the most important element in maximising value most of the time is keeping their user base happy and growing it wherever possible. The key question for CCP is actually a simple one (assuming any performance issues can be managed) - can they generate more revenue/growth/profit from the single ship SKIN model or the multi-ship SKIN model? Simple question but tough to come up with the "right" answer.

Underlying issue in all of this is how important is artwork/the look of ships to the user base and how much are they willing to pay to have decorated ships.

Option 1 - continue with the single skin model. Will generate revenue from multiple skin purchases if price point is right and client interest is high (unclear at this point whether either is valid). Price points can be adjusted based on takeup rates and feedback. Will avoid the possible performance issues identified by CCP. Has the risk of annoying clients as the cat is now out of the bag re multi ship applicability of SKINs.

Option 2 - switch to a multi-ship SKIN model. Unclear whether revenue would increase or decrease from this switch (modelling required); has the benefit of being seen as responsive to player input. Will need to identify and address any performance issues (possible increased costs). Possible cost savings as there would be reduced need for additional skins from the Art department due to broader use of existing skins.

Option 3 - find a middle ground. Skins that can be applied to specific races or ship types but aren't limited to one ship. As with other options, need to assess demand and possible takeup rates to understand economic viability.


Red herring - the view of the dystopian Universe. Its a big universe in EVE. CCP can preserve the general dark/gritty feel while allowing for more individual expression that will in fact highlight the general darkness. Unless someone can definitively show how allowing more expression is going to reduce revenue/growth/profit I would recommend giving it a go.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#47 - 2015-05-01 19:15:54 UTC
CCP Falcon wrote:
Here's a response from us regarding this bug!Smile

Maybe you should make it a feature. Just a thought...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#48 - 2015-05-01 19:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
CCP WHY YOU HATE US NOT LETTIN US DO WHAT WE WANT

It's not like they have been working on any way for players to have complete painting freedom for their ships. No way a greedy money grubbing company like CCP would do that.

calm yo ****.

E: on a side note, I am of the opinion that if I ever see Thukker camo on an Amarr hull, that is a personal offense and I will hunt you down until you plead to your god for mercy. Or not. Depends what my schedule looks like.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#49 - 2015-05-01 19:38:53 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Right, because if you take the 18% subscription decrease, calculate that out of the 500,000 peak they had, and then compare the 90,000 result to the number of forum complaints (200-page thread, 20 posts per page, all complaints = 4,000), the numbers certainly support your theory that people don't actually quit anyway.
That's pure guesstimation at the sub numbers. That said, I never said people don't leave EVE, more that the people complaining and screaming "I'LL QUIT I WILL!" tend to not actually quit. If they are passionate enough about the game that making the CQ and $1000 pants is enough for them to lose their freakin minds, then they are probably addicted to the game and unlikely to leave any time soon.

In addition, your 18% is the potential decrease in subs following CCP buckling to the public pressure of players shooting the monument. Who's to say that if they actually stood up for what they believed was the right direction for EVE that it wouldn't be in a better position now. They certainly spend too much time trying to appease the loudest whiners these days, that's for sure.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-05-01 19:50:26 UTC
How quickly most of your forget.

The issues around Incarna was not because the Vanity Items was too expensive. Many of the issues didn't even have anything to do with the NEX store at all.

The issues were, in order:
- Lack of ANY Meaningful Development, Improvement, or Fixes to the actual Eve Game in over a Year.
- The Captains Quarters being Forced on everyone with no option to turn it off (causes a great deal of load on lower-end machines.
- The whole Walking in Stations having taken up a year and a half of Dev Time rather than game-play improvements.
- CCP Refusing to publicly states that they were NOT going to use the NEX Store for Pay2Win.
Vanity Items being expensive.

That's the order. CCP has done it right this time, for the most part.

Like or hate the SKIN's system, no one can say CCP hasn't done any other work on Eve since they started working on it. We've had major balance passes, new ships, new models, improvements to the core engine, etc.

Some of the big changes, like the Map, were Opt-in Beta's before they were pushed out to everyone. There's lots of issues with it still, but I'll be most of them could have been sorted out if people had of bothered to actively test it when it was in Beta, and post feedback. I've checked the threads, while the issues were raised, they were not raised by many till CCP forced it on everyone.

Prices, well ya, I think a lot of them are overprice, OR should be made available in game by other means. There seems to be little sense in the pricing structure for the SKIN's atm, Supers being most expensive makes sense, but there are frigates that cost more than BS's. That said, for an Initial Launch, it's not bad. Hopefully CCP will sort some of it out in the neat future.


People here talking about the Incarna Riots were by people that felt self-entitled.. no, they have honest to god issues. Issues which CCP listed too and quickly addressed I might add for the better of the game. The people who complain about the SKIN's system now and make it out to be like Incarna need their head examined.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#51 - 2015-05-01 19:54:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Lucas Kell wrote:
In addition, your 18% is the potential decrease in subs following CCP buckling to the public pressure of players shooting the monument. Who's to say that if they actually stood up for what they believed was the right direction for EVE that it wouldn't be in a better position now.

Crucible, that's who.

No-one quit playing because CCP started to listen to the players after nearly two years of ignoring them. Crucible proved that listening to players made them come back.

What you seem to have forgotten is that they had no direction for EVE, only (barely) for their other IPs. That's a large part of why Incarna (the feature) crashed and burned. It was reheated left-overs from efforts put towards other IPs. And that's the really important thing to remember: they didn't even have a proper direction for the new IPs that were meant to calve off tech that could be reused in EVE — it was continuously trashed and restarted because of the aimless feature creep, so any conception of there being a direction for the EVE stuff is laughably naïve. If EVE got anything, it was purely accidental and incidental, and very very far removed from anything that could be considered a proper direction.

Sniper Smith wrote:
How quickly most of your forget.

The issues around Incarna was not because the Vanity Items was too expensive. Many of the issues didn't even have anything to do with the NEX store at all.

The issues were, in order:
- Lack of ANY Meaningful Development, Improvement, or Fixes to the actual Eve Game in over a Year.
- The Captains Quarters being Forced on everyone with no option to turn it off (causes a great deal of load on lower-end machines.
- The whole Walking in Stations having taken up a year and a half of Dev Time rather than game-play improvements.
- CCP Refusing to publicly states that they were NOT going to use the NEX Store for Pay2Win.
Vanity Items being expensive.

…also, CCP trying to monetise the API, CCP trying to monetise fan sites, the baffling and contradictory nature of AUR, indeed the entire nonsensical approach to micropayment and monetisation (to the point where industry insiders were laughing their balls off at how ineptly it was done), a fair amount of lost functionality, and in combination with every single of the above points, a lasting and deeply disturbing patterns of refusal to communicate or even begin to manage expectations. It was that last part that was the final straw: when CCP tried to “answer our concerns” and it turned out they were almost completely deaf to what those concerns were.

In short, it was a mess.

So yes, it was not just one thing, and the NeX was only a small part of it (even if it was perhaps the most outwardly spectacular part for those not part of the community), but it was also a much longer list of issues than that one and it started brewing some time before Incarna was actually released.
Kerena Alabel
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#52 - 2015-05-01 19:56:03 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
http://puu.sh/hxdS5/d8bc5ce305.jpg
MY PRECIOUS!



Nice. Heres mine.

http://i.imgur.com/xsy4BNI.jpg
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#53 - 2015-05-01 20:18:43 UTC
Kerena Alabel wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
http://puu.sh/hxdS5/d8bc5ce305.jpg
MY PRECIOUS!



Nice. Heres mine.

http://i.imgur.com/xsy4BNI.jpg

I see your Shiny, and raise you Corporate Advertising.

http://i.imgur.com/TgkSfIL.jpg Quafe Paladin.. OMFG.. CCP, lore or not, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. I can accept Lore for not selling military skins to other factions, but Corp Skins.. Come on.. It's so beautiful \o/
Maria Jita
NOMADS.
#54 - 2015-05-01 20:20:41 UTC

Can we have an official response as to why CCP is releasing features when they know it is bugged and potentially "cause increased load and client performance issues"

May I suggest that CCP changes to a release cycle that allowes for you to postpone features that include known bugs?... oh.. wait.. sorry... May I suggest that CCP starts to use the advantages of their release cycle instead of constantly releasing bugged updates? That would be great!
Mister Ripley
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2015-05-01 20:20:46 UTC
Kerena Alabel wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
http://puu.sh/hxdS5/d8bc5ce305.jpg
MY PRECIOUS!



Nice. Heres mine.

http://i.imgur.com/xsy4BNI.jpg

Why do this things happen when I don't have access to a client?? SCREW YOU CCP!!!!!!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2015-05-01 20:22:47 UTC
Not going to lie, this glitch pretty much makes the skin system function in a way that would actually have me participating now were it officially sanctioned. Not only because I can apply skins to hulls I actually fly regularly, but also because skinning a large number of hulls becomes a non-bank breaking proposition.

Going to agree with those who propose more general SKINS since the functionality exists rather than specific hull restrictions. If QA is the only thing standing in the way there isn't much reason to not enable further hulls to use a skin as QA passes them. There could even be a compromise where a skin applies to a particular ship size or something.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#57 - 2015-05-01 20:26:23 UTC
Maria Jita wrote:

Can we have an official response as to why CCP is releasing features when they know it is bugged and potentially "cause increased load and client performance issues"

May I suggest that CCP changes to a release cycle that allowes for you to postpone features that include known bugs?... oh.. wait.. sorry... May I suggest that CCP starts to use the advantages of their release cycle instead of constantly releasing bugged updates? That would be great!

It's not a feature and it wasn't released as such.

It's a ******* bug! As in: it was an unintended side effect of this release. Some of you people are just simply dumb.

Seriously dumb.

Mr Epeen Cool
Kerena Alabel
Pyke Syndicate
Solyaris Chtonium
#58 - 2015-05-01 20:28:50 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Kerena Alabel wrote:
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
http://puu.sh/hxdS5/d8bc5ce305.jpg
MY PRECIOUS!



Nice. Heres mine.

http://i.imgur.com/xsy4BNI.jpg

I see your Shiny, and raise you Corporate Advertising.

http://i.imgur.com/TgkSfIL.jpg Quafe Paladin.. OMFG.. CCP, lore or not, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. I can accept Lore for not selling military skins to other factions, but Corp Skins.. Come on.. It's so beautiful \o/



That is mighty pretty
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#59 - 2015-05-01 20:40:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:
What you seem to have forgotten is that they had no direction for EVE
I disagree. They simply didn't have the same ideas as some of the overly entitled players. I too was playing at the time and had no problems with what they were doing. I didn't feel the sudden desire to start shooting monuments and stamping my feet.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Irya Boone
The Scope
#60 - 2015-05-01 20:46:47 UTC
Just check if any problem with performance... If not

Let us have it CCP..... Be smart everyone loves it and don't give us the lore thing reason.
You can say that a drifter #something# can make us apply any skin on any ship etc etc

CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!

you shall all bow and pray BoB