These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Free-to-play F2P Scheme
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#1 - 2015-10-29 05:29:49 UTC  |  Edited by: thebarry
I have a F2P scheme I'd like your feedback on:

The first 10m sp(total for all chars on the account) is earned for free, at the standard rate of training. Afterwards, the account does not suspend, but training will not progress unless a subscription is added or skill points are purchased from another subscriber who is selling a ‘Transneural Skill Packet’(TSP). Characters are not allowed to sell the first 10m SP, but can sell sp they earn above that. Here are some of the possibilities of this scheme in practice:

A player could play without a subscription or ever buying a plex, but occasionally they might save up enough isk to purchase a TSP on the market to advance their skills, while always being able to log in and participate in content.

A new player could start an account, enjoy the game and almost immediately purchase several TSPs(which puts them over the 10m limit) and then begin a subscription to further their training.

An older player could keep their hauler/trader/cyno alt accounts unsubbed(but available) to ease the financial burden of running alliance logistics.

The same player could instead keep those accounts subscribed with PLEX and then sell the SP they gain via TSPs.


The SP limit obviously doesn't have to be 10m, that might be too generous, and also there could be limits to which skills can actually be trained while you are below that limit. Once over the limit tho it shouldn't matter what is trained because all of that training time or SP was paid for with rl money one way or another.

Let me know what you think.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2015-10-29 06:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
For those of us that remember the hullabaloo about free trial miner bots over the damage it was doing to the game economy... take that flood of ore and multiply it by every PVE activity and an endless swarm of low SP tackle alts. That's basically why it shouldn't be done. Eve was not designed for it.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#3 - 2015-10-29 06:12:18 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
For those of us that remember the hullabaloo about free trial miner bots over the damage it was doing to the game economy... take that flood of ore and multiply it by every PVE activity and an endless swarm of low SP tackle alts. That's basically why it shouldn't be done. Eve was not designed for it.


Botting damages the game regardless of what scheme you use, so it's not a valid reason F2P wouldn't work imo. Instead it's a reason to aggressively enforce rules against botting, and design more dynamic pve content that makes botting less viable. Also, wouldn't a F2P model substantially reduce the benefits of botting?
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#4 - 2015-10-29 07:01:33 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Evelgrivion wrote:
For those of us that remember the hullabaloo about free trial miner bots over the damage it was doing to the game economy... take that flood of ore and multiply it by every PVE activity and an endless swarm of low SP tackle alts. That's basically why it shouldn't be done. Eve was not designed for it.


Botting damages the game regardless of what scheme you use, so it's not a valid reason F2P wouldn't work imo. Instead it's a reason to aggressively enforce rules against botting, and design more dynamic pve content that makes botting less viable. Also, wouldn't a F2P model substantially reduce the benefits of botting?


F2P would mean one of a botter's stiffest limits (subscription fee) wouldn't apply any more. With 10M SP, well:
Mining frigate III: 8000
Industry V: 256k
Mining IV: 45255
Astrogeology III: 24k
Mining Barge III: 32k
Drones III: 8000
Light Drones I: 250 (hisec rats)
So... all a bot in an ore field would really need is about 400k SP.

So you want to bot an ice field?
Ice harvesting V: 256k

Optional, but very nice:
Mining Barge V: 1M
Reprocessing V: 256k
Mining V: 256k
Astrogeology V: 768k
Scordite, Veldspar, Plagioclase, Pyro reprocessing IV: 45255 apiece (crystals)
Kernite, Omber, Hemorphite, Jaspet IV: 90510 apiece
Still very doable on 10M SP.

Null ores would be a little more trouble, because these barges would need to be able to deal with big spawns, so:
Drones V: 256k
Light Drones V: 512k
Drone Interfacing V: 1.25M
Still doable.

A signature :o
Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2015-10-29 07:12:44 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Why do we need this?
We already have a perfectly viable system, that allows players to play without them paying RL cash.

So no, it's a poor idea that fixes nothing.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#6 - 2015-10-29 07:41:43 UTC
Mag's wrote:
thebarry wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Why do we need this?
We already have a perfectly viable system, that allows players to play without them paying RL cash.

So no, it's a poor idea that fixes nothing.



It's intended to get the user counts up, in case you hadn't noticed, they are down quite a bit, to the point that ccp is now offering to pay ppl isk to undock and do things(tributes).

@Shallanna, if someone is botting they have plenty of isk to pay for plex, i don't think that's a very stiff limit.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#7 - 2015-10-29 07:59:10 UTC
thebarry wrote:
I have a F2P scheme I'd like your feedback on:

The first 10m sp(total for all chars on the account) is earned for free, at the standard rate of training. Afterwards, the account does not suspend, but training will not progress unless a subscription is added or skill points are purchased from another subscriber who is selling a ‘Transneural Skill Packet’(TSP). Characters are not allowed to sell SP until they are over 15m sp total on their account, in order to ensure that all SP sold was actually paid for irl, either directly through a subscription or indirectly through a plex. Here are some of the possibilities of this scheme in practice:

A player could play without a subscription or ever buying a plex, but occasionally they might save up enough isk to purchase a TSP on the market to advance their skills, while always being able to log in and participate in content.

A new player could start an account, enjoy the game and almost immediately purchase several TSPs(which puts them over the 10m limit) and then begin a subscription to further their training.

An older player could keep their hauler/trader/cyno alt accounts unsubbed(but available) to ease the financial burden of running alliance logistics.

The same player could instead keep those accounts subscribed with PLEX and then sell the SP they gain via TSPs.


The SP limit obviously doesn't have to be 10m, that might be too generous, and also there could be limits to which skills can actually be trained while you are below that limit. Once over the limit tho it shouldn't matter what is trained because all of that training time or SP was paid for with rl money one way or another.

Let me know what you think.


Please allow in the same way the reuse of multiboxerprogramm, so i can use t1 catalyst to gank every big ship in highsec solo,
i´m looking forward to this Twisted.

But please explain me how ccp would get the needed money to pay the support team and the crew. I think they don´t accept ISK as a loan.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#8 - 2015-10-29 08:00:10 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Mag's wrote:
thebarry wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Why do we need this?
We already have a perfectly viable system, that allows players to play without them paying RL cash.

So no, it's a poor idea that fixes nothing.



It's intended to get the user counts up, in case you hadn't noticed, they are down quite a bit, to the point that ccp is now offering to pay ppl isk to undock and do things(tributes).

@Shallanna, if someone is botting they have plenty of isk to pay for plex, i don't think that's a very stiff limit.

1+ bil/month/account is a pretty big chunk of kredits.

If we want to get people to pay attention to the game, we need to do things which get free advertising (news stories), like wreck a freighter loaded down with plex, come up with an incredibly huge and innovative new scam, or corp-thief one of the crazy-huge alliances. That is the kind of news which gets peoples' attention and get them asking "What's EVE?"

From there, the new player experience should spell out plainly not just how to do stuff, but a lot of the cross- and counter-play in this game (it does scrams/stabs and DPS/tank). It should spell out very clearly:
What kind of game this is
How everyone is really out to get you and steal your stuff
How you should be out to make contacts, make stuff happen, and get everyone else first.
Oh, and it should spell out how you shouldn't trust anybody else with anything you can't afford to lose.
A little mention of that "emergent gameplay" thing wouldn't hurt, either.

A signature :o
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#9 - 2015-10-29 08:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: thebarry
Tabyll Altol wrote:


Please allow in the same way the reuse of multiboxerprogramm, so i can use t1 catalyst to gank every big ship in highsec solo,
i´m looking forward to this Twisted.

But please explain me how ccp would get the needed money to pay the support team and the crew. I think they don´t accept ISK as a loan.



ISBoxer can be used, it's just the command broadcasting that has been disallowed. I personally don't care too much if it's used or not, but ccp has some valid reasons for banning the broadcasting functions, like one person doing bombruns and wiping out entire fleets for example.

Since only the first 10m(or whatever the limit is) sp on any account is free, ANY skills trained beyond that amount would be paid for either directly through an account subscription, or indirectly through a plex or TSP if those are implemented(the TSP would be made from existing skill points which of course have to be paid for via plex or subscriptions). So ccp would make money from players training or trading skill points, and the hope is that a F2P model would increase the number of players engaged and creating content for the game.

@Shallanna you mention how the news of epic internet space battles, or betrayal and spying that goes on in EVE is what makes people try the game out, and I agree with you, which is why I am suggesting this F2P model, which would hopefully get a lot more people playing, creating content and producing stories like that.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-10-29 08:19:02 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Argh for the love of **** can we get a F2P bullshit sticky too please and lock these for ever more?

I'm sick to ******* death of every Tom, **** and Harry posting this pish every day about how to make eve terrible.
thebarry
7-2 Ronin
#11 - 2015-10-29 08:23:14 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Argh for the love of **** can we get a F2P bullshit sticky too please and lock these for ever more?

I'm sick to ******* death of every Tom, **** and Harry posting this pish every day about how to make eve terrible.


Please tell me more about how awesome eve is doing right now, and how having more nerds to shoot at will make it terrible.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#12 - 2015-10-29 08:55:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
EVE is "not doing great" because people like you exist. People like you who do not want to create something to do to make the experience worthwhile in EVE and instead only consume things others create. However, if no one wants to create something, there is nothing to consume and thus playing becomes "boring". This is the entire problem with EVE right now. And you want to bring even more people of that caliber into EVE, amplifying the problem even further.
Instead of asking for F2P P2W, you should suggest things that make playing EVE more worthwhile, augment the experience, make undocking and roaming around in space enjoyable and creating something a pleasure and not just a target to be destroyed by bored players. And no, Arenas or any form of Matchmaking does not achieve that; you can put that idea right out of your mind.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2015-10-29 08:56:53 UTC
thebarry wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Argh for the love of **** can we get a F2P bullshit sticky too please and lock these for ever more?

I'm sick to ******* death of every Tom, **** and Harry posting this pish every day about how to make eve terrible.


Please tell me more about how awesome eve is doing right now, and how having more nerds to shoot at will make it terrible.



Please tell me how your F2P thread is any better or more relevant than the other MILLION THREADS

Protip: It's not.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#14 - 2015-10-29 09:20:01 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Mag's wrote:
thebarry wrote:
Let me know what you think.
Why do we need this?
We already have a perfectly viable system, that allows players to play without them paying RL cash.

So no, it's a poor idea that fixes nothing.



It's intended to get the user counts up, in case you hadn't noticed, they are down quite a bit, to the point that ccp is now offering to pay ppl isk to undock and do things(tributes)
Ahh so let's ignore the current working F2P system Eve offers and do this anyway?

What does this fix again?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Kooshti
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-10-29 09:37:30 UTC
wish ccp would put a filter so threads that contain "F2P" & "Free-To-Play" be banned from being created, like a message pops up saying "Please post something new as you are boring my forums, thanks bye"
Sigras
Conglomo
#16 - 2015-10-29 09:41:55 UTC
thebarry wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Argh for the love of **** can we get a F2P bullshit sticky too please and lock these for ever more?

I'm sick to ******* death of every Tom, **** and Harry posting this pish every day about how to make eve terrible.

Please tell me more about how awesome eve is doing right now, and how having more nerds to shoot at will make it terrible.

I'll admit Eve could be doing better, but you dont go fixing one problem by adding 10 more...

I have 3 objections to any kind of system like this.

1. Players (including me) will simply create 50 mining alts and semi AFK mine in mackinaws all day. Sure this would artificially raise the PCU of New Eden but not actually provide any new content or additional revenue for CCP
2. As if free to play accounts weren't bad enough, can you imagine the number of cloaky cyno alts and spies that would be everywhere?
3. The F2P crowd doesnt want a game like Eve. They mostly want easy games which spoon feed them entertainment. This is the wrong game to do free to play and everyone but you seems to be able to see that easily.
Atomeon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2015-10-29 10:03:20 UTC
thebarry wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Argh for the love of **** can we get a F2P bullshit sticky too please and lock these for ever more?

I'm sick to ******* death of every Tom, **** and Harry posting this pish every day about how to make eve terrible.


Please tell me more about how awesome eve is doing right now, and how having more nerds to shoot at will make it terrible.


Apparently you want more (non fighting back) targets, your suggestion wont make EVE better.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#18 - 2015-10-29 13:06:55 UTC
thebarry wrote:
Please tell me more about how awesome eve is doing right now, and how having more nerds to shoot at will make it terrible.

Please tell me how F2P is going to positively affect numbers of retained players.

As for OP, 1st one is terrible because it sends very loud and literal "pay to win" message. Not only it's "play the game, pay for the levels", it's also doesn't cater to regular customer base of P2W games. As to what is is to existing playerbase, see comments above.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#19 - 2015-10-29 13:52:38 UTC
CCP has a tough road ahead, what makes EvE unique and attractive to many of us is the skills training system and how it rewards those who commit long term to the game and punishes those that are not willing to commit, making EvE F2P will never change this fundamental aspect of the game. Even if CCP takes EvE into the F2P arena you still have the skills training and SP related problems to deal with.

In the end EvE is not the problem, players inability or unwillingness to dedicate the time is the real source of the problem and F2P will not change that unless it is accompanied by a fundamental shift it the skills training system. And that represents the largest challenge that CCP faces, EvE is unique in large part because of the skills system and yet to cater to the grind based mentality of most F2P players they would have to make a fundamental shift in the very thing that makes EvE unique.

EvE needs to have a larger player base that's for sure, but F2P is not the way to get the dedicated long term players that we need and want.
Shallanna Yassavi
qwertz corp
#20 - 2015-10-29 18:28:41 UTC
I've played a freemium EVE-like game for a while. Alts were banned, but if you didn't have a whole bunch of alts working for your faction, you didn't have (serious) logistics. Alts have this funny way of not spying or stealing your stuff.

If it can be abused, it will be. This most definitely can.

A signature :o
12Next page