These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev Blog: Introducing Clone States & the Future of Access to EVE

First post First post First post
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#701 - 2016-09-01 03:11:19 UTC
beakerax wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Certainly some people quit over the subscription price and make that known in the why are you quitting questionnaire, but how many quit and leave no reason at all, how many of the those who don't comment quit because they don't like the idea of having to create their own content or can't deal with the basic premise of not being safe anywhere?
How many people unsub intending to win Eve temporarily and never come back at all? Lowering the barrier for them to log in could be very good.
You missed the point I was making, there are many things that deter people from Eve, the sub model is only one of them, and probably the least of them given the brutal nature of the game.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Neuronia deBuissy
Gallente Federation
#702 - 2016-09-01 03:35:09 UTC

F2P will be nice to bring in new players, but ultimately the game may have poor retention because of its complexity. I created this account in 2012, played for about six months or so then moved on, not because it was too arduous (I love love love that skills train when offline) but just because I wasn't interested in doing Fleet stuff, I like to just zip around space and see things and explore and such.

Now, having been in a few F2P games (SWTOR the more recent one), some things need to happen:

1)Limit Local Chat or you'll see: "Buy from XYZ.COM quick delivery!" Likewise, no sending ISK in mail or limit mail sending altogether, to avoid people sending you 1 ISK then a spam message.
2)Limit account logins so people don't just make a ton of small ships and clog lanes. I'd be willing to bet that some group of yahoos will just make a ton of free ships and log them in to see if they can crash the server (possibly why they had that stress-test recently?)
3)Caps on ISK. This is a recurring theme in most MMO's, but basically allow enough ISK to fit T1 (maybe T2?) stuff on your basic ship, and do some repairs, but not much more than that. There has to be some incentive to paying for a Sub. Issue here is PLEX sells for a bunch, so you'd have to escrow the rest (more tech, yay!).
4)Content lockout: T4 missions? Wormhole space? Joining guilds? All things that need to be addressed, as I'm sure we don't want people to join a guild, rob them blind then move on. Then again, it is EVE...Big smile

Another approach I've seen is: "Buy X stuff and it counts to unlock features." This might not be palatable, but say you get some Aurum (4.99) buy a skin of some sort, great! Now you can use mail. You can still play and increase your content attribution without spending the full amount of a sub. Not sure how feasible this is...

Lastly, and this is reaaaaaaaaally out there, but "tethering" F2P to certain areas on logout might be a thing to consider. Maybe they get warped to their starting Faction area, maybe to the nearest docking bay, whatever. Just tso they don't camp gates. Or have CONCORD just terminate them if they do stuff, w/e. Pirate

Looking forward to the changes, the skill allowances seem fine overall, maybe a few tweaks.
Pator Tech School
#703 - 2016-09-01 03:36:33 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
You missed the point I was making, there are many things that deter people from Eve, the sub model is only one of them, and probably the least of them given the brutal nature of the game.
I didn't, but my own point was kind of opaque.

Obviously EVE is simply not the game for a lot of people, there is no chance of turning those people into long-term players. If this free-to-log-in scheme were meant to attract every possible player to EVE, it would fail.

But I think CCP knows that. The goal is instead to give new players who are the target demographic time to find their niche in a niche game, and I think allowing unsubbed accounts to log in and poke about might help control the attrition of older players as well.
Arcturus Ursidae
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#704 - 2016-09-01 03:38:08 UTC
My immediate reaction was quite negative and probably not postable.

Being a casual faction warfare player my immediate concern regarding free accounts with low skill tech 1 ships was around an increase in alt stabbed farming.

However the real problem here is faction warfare mechanics not the possibility of genuine new free account players.

Given this monumental change I really hope CCP can has something in its back pocket to throw to existing players in all spectra of eve. Re hashing links and a few new ship skins is not really an encouraging expansion to put out with an ambition to draw new players.

A few changes to faction warfare would be much appreciated.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#705 - 2016-09-01 03:50:31 UTC
On the subject of Gnosis, cutting down some quotes which were related in the context and had a conversation with each other before as well;

1) Keebler Wizard: Nah maybe you should learn to read. Gnosis is above cruiser first off.
2) Lady Ayeipsia: Gnosis is a Battle cruiser. The Dev blog said Alpha clones are limited to Cruiser down. There is no issue here.
3) Gogela: but it would be game breaking if Alpha accounts could fly them. Gnosis are Jove-related ships, and absolutely classified as faction. They are too versatile and powerful for free accounts, though. Ultimately I think it comes down to common sense. CCP said no faction ships. Is the Genosis a faction ship? Do YOU really think they will let Alphas fly the Genosis?
4) Kenrailae: Gnosis and Yacht's have never been tied from, nor excluded from any race. They're that grey area where 'yeah I'm a faction ship.... that can be flown by literally every character in the game, and have nothing really that special about me, without the skills to back it up.' Which they can't train. I don't see a problem with it, if a trial account can log in and get in the thing, why shouldn't a free account?
1) The problem is how Eve uses it's own terminology. By preview, it's a Combat Battlecruiser. By size and stats it's a battlecruiser. By skills, it isn't. Same thing with people calling a Freighter a capital ship, when it doesn't require the capital ship skill, yet uses capital ship components but has no restrictions of capital ships. So while you are technically correct on the "common sense" subject, you are also incorrect on the technical aspect.

2) But we don't know which path of definition CCP will follow in the area. The Gnosis is a special edition ship acquired from the 2nd Decade of Eve Special edition box, which is still available, but I don't think many people will put out 140+ dollars just to have their Alpha character fly a special ship which they'll inevitably lose. Coming from this point of view, CCP wants the stuff they sell to be used. From a marketing perspective, how stupid would it be to sell something to someone they can't even use up front? This is not a question of viability, but of inherent customer feeling and satisfaction right out of the gate.

3) Alpha Clones flying Gnosis is just a non-issue in terms of game balance as trials flying Gnosis is, since they are limited in their skills. They are not even remotely powerful if you look at the skill list again. So yes, I actually encourage Alphas to fly Gnosis. The more they blow up, the more rare a Gnosis will become as it is not a readily available ship.

4) This guy gets it. Hence he's quoted last. And to prove him right, as this has been questioned too:
Yes, a Gnosis can be flown by Trial accounts today as they always could. Nothing to ponder about that.

"But Drazz, you idiot," I sense others typing feverishly into the keyboard now, "Trial accounts can fly up to battleship nowadays, they won't be able to do that later, your argument is invalid."
It actually isn't. First, this was a recent change, and back then everyone could fly them. Second, reread what I wrote about special edition sales. I'm 99% certain the Gnosis will remain available for Alpha Clones, as they rightfully should. It's their fault if they get blown up with it, and the supply of these ships is very finite.

Dopenose Lameth wrote:
My fear is that existing (paying) players will abuse this system by making a large number of free alts. Every fight will involve 20+ meta fitted Logi. In highsec one can expect suicide ganks happening a lot more. In low/null i expect to see 50man free2play caracal fleets being piloted by 1 person.
Trying keep myself in check for a change...
What gives you the impression of a player being able to field dozens of Alpha accounts? Can you field more than one trial? No. Will you be able to field more than one Alpha? Extremely unlikely. 99% no, if CCP knows what's good for them. Will people try to circumvent it and still try? Maybe, and then it will hail permabans. You can't mask everything, and if you keep violating the rules that way, data privacy can be lifted when a lawsuit is eligible. CCP can already monitor our hardware and software running to prevent this kind of tampering.
While your fear about this issue is understandable, I'm sure it will be handled appropriately.

Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:
Introduce permadeath. Podded Alphas are permanently gone.
Remove the tech II ship and module restrictions. Up the skill cap.
Experience New Eden as a human among immortals. One play for a quarter.
Let's make EvE darker.
you know, if CCP ever decides to make a secondary server called "Mortality" which functions the same as eve, only with permadeath, I would not be surprised to see a spike in subscription numbers again Lol All jokes aside it won't happen. Which is good.

Charsara wrote:
Don't allow the Alpha clones into 0.0 and wormholes. Nullsec already has it's fair share of scrub alts parked around the map. Let them inhabit FW and lowsec if they want to pewpew.
Disagree. If you tease them with huge fights from the get-go and they get thrown into a paywall, that's suicidal reputation. You want to give them something to have the new flesh hooked. Bring them into nullsec with backup of the NPE friendly community, clash against nullsec inhabitants. See a supercap, get killed. Be hooked. You'd be surprised how often it works this way.

Soltys wrote:
Instead of recurring make it automatic, for example:
For each account that hasn't logged for 1 month or more, offer free Omega clone for say 2 days. Up to 7 days maxium.
Or anything similar along those lines, with whatever granularity deemed sensible.
Quoting for agreement with the general idea. Numbers are elastic.
Mapster Tacitus
Goonswarm Federation
#706 - 2016-09-01 03:53:04 UTC
Why restrict it to one Faction ?
See, the Dev Blog says you want an "exciting EVE experience for Alphas". So there will be many new Players joining the Alliances in New Eden and they want to fleet up with people. So if we do a Cerberus Fleet, we would say "Sure, as an Alpha, you can bring a Caracal instead".
There will be all the Guys who choosed Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar because of Style or whatever and they bring a Thorax or something -.-
They COULD bring the Caracal if they train another of their 3 Chars for Caldari but Training Basic Skills again, Applying to Corp and Starting all over again isnt a great experience .
Its just an unnecessary detour.
Polly Fera
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#707 - 2016-09-01 03:55:59 UTC
the idea of the clones - ****
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#708 - 2016-09-01 04:11:59 UTC
Doc Fury wrote:
Looks like its time for Doc to follow Tippia and Mr. Garibaldi beyond the Rim. 2016 has been a helluva year for losing people, making bad decisions, and unintended consequences. The EA rot has become terminal.

Especially comical are the following:

CCP wrote:

We have not decided...
We don’t think clone states will have much impact...
We don’t expect a significant increase in this kind of activity..
We’ve deliberately tried to limit this behavior..

Doc's personal favorite:
CCP wrote:

We are creating and implementing concrete plans to make sure we can provide the same level of support for all of our players

CCP, you can barely provide acceptable levels of customer support now. The kinds of players you are trying to attract won't put up with what you consider adequate, and they won't accept your usual platitudes.


I can't believe I'm gonna say this but I agree wholeheartedly 100%.

Hell, I may even join you guys and book passage on that night train myself.


Mordus Angels
#709 - 2016-09-01 04:19:07 UTC
Ocean Ormand wrote:
Just curious - the punishment for botting is banning - but now its free to make accounts - so ccp would have to ban the ip. But I think (I may be wrong) that you can manipulate your ip address if you want. So CCP just effectively threw in the towel on botting - a botter gets banned - he just keeps making new accounts - since there is no cost or punishment to him there is no disincentive to botting.

There is other ways of "fingerprinting" a particular physical machine.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Arry Ghekon
Knights of the Protectorate
#710 - 2016-09-01 04:22:09 UTC
I couldn't resist posting in what is sure to be a historic thread.
Ray Mitar
Ganksters Inc
#711 - 2016-09-01 04:23:02 UTC
I am actually hoping this works.

I told an active gamer that uses game consoles that EVE would have a free access for them and they are aware I have played for years and then they said they'd "have to fire up their computer. A positive response.

Please CCP don't screw this up like you did with DUST514.
Silven Rubis
The Initiative.
#712 - 2016-09-01 04:24:15 UTC
Nice move CCP, the Idea is good and hope will reward us all - you guys in attracting more people to the game and us players in getting more population as well ;-)+1
Arry Ghekon
Knights of the Protectorate
#713 - 2016-09-01 04:27:37 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
There is other ways of "fingerprinting" a particular physical machine.

True, but once people figure out what they're using, you can work around it. VMs of course are the obvious answer. Perhaps even containerization could be done at a much lower resource cost. I'll have to set up a Windows Server 2016 w/ Docker(whenever they get around to finally releasing a non-RC, final version) instance in AWS and see if each client can be made completely discrete from each other.

Also, things like MACs, UUIDs, and SIDs can be spoofed or changed. Whether it is "worth" it will depend on how long it takes for the offender's accounts to get banned. If it takes 1 month, hey, it's probably worth the overhead to them. If it takes 2 hours, probably not.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#714 - 2016-09-01 04:34:49 UTC
Rapala Armiron wrote:
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
I can not believe CCP takes this path. One example: have multiple T1 ganker clones for free. Another one: have dozens of T1 mining alts emptying belts faster than they can spawn.

What are you thinking CCP?

They are thinking that they are out of ideas. They tried attracting casuals by making eve a more friendly place and that didnt work. They tried dumbing down the game and that didnt work. They forgot what made eve good in the first place, abandoning their base in favor of chasing after wow players. Nothing has worked. They are at the end of the rope. So like all mmo dev's who are out of ideas they throw in the towel and go ftp. Ofc this wont work. FTP attracts casuals - but eve is built around hardcore players - the casuals will spike eve's player count in the short term - but it wont last. It never does. The casuals being casuals they will fade away. A year from now eve will be in a worse place then it is today.

Free to play is the death knell for games. What I dont understand is why they feel they will be different then every other mmo that went ftp as a last desperate move before going belly up? This model doesnt even make sense - ftp is built around whales - this model ignores whales and micro transactions and instead its built around making the gaming experience inconvenient for its alphas e.g. they cant do this and they cant do that without purchasing a full account. But how are they going to convince casuals that what they are missing out on is so much better then what they are getting for free that it is worth spending 15$ a month for? Casuals already could try out the game on a trial account - if that trial account wasnt enough to convince a causal to subscribe how is giving them a permanent trial account for ever going to change that? CCP continues to burn its bridges to its core players. When this doesnt work will there be any going back?

Well it was a good run.

Very well said and I agree 100%.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#715 - 2016-09-01 04:40:50 UTC
Nana Skalski wrote:
New Skill window - bad, vertical labels are BAD. Big empty spaces, rigid formatting, too big and not scalable as it seems, queue completely non visible.

Leave skill window as it is now.

I suspect many holes will be in this design. Many throwaway alts for ganking will be trained simultanously no matter the design. Many multiboxers. No one of them being afraid of CCP retribution upon them. People playing to grief, and not afraid about them being banned for anything.
I will wait and see how these old and new players with alpha accounts will contribute to general EVE experience.

No matter how you will call it, its free to play. The emperor has no clothes.
They will play for free. Then they will complain about this ftp model being too restrictive and they will want everything for free on daily basis.

Good point about the new skill window. When I saw that I just thought to myself CCP definitely has no clue. Obviously Dev's are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with stuff to justify their employment.

Mordus Angels
#716 - 2016-09-01 04:43:24 UTC
Christopher Mabata wrote:

I would propose simply making the ships themselves require Alpha/Omega Status so players could still use a vexor or a caracal or an arbitrator if they chose Matari as their base race rather than sticking them in a faction they may no longer even fly. And at the same time as an Alpha i cant hop in a Cruor or whatever others i can fly without paying to access the ship like everyone in Omega status.

That is a good idea. I would emphasize that for the sake of clarity and less newbie confusion it might make sense to add a clear disclaimer into the ship and module info screens stating that "this module requires omega clone to function" or "this hull requires omega clone to fly".

And yes - all races should be usable. If the problem is 5 mil SP limit just make it so that skill extractors can not be used under whatever SP the final Alpha list will end up and/or exclude Alpha list skills from extractable skill list altogether.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Teckos Pech
Goonswarm Federation
#717 - 2016-09-01 04:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Winter Archipelago wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:

i will give you the easiest and most obvious one that you should have been able to figure out to whet your appetite for knowledge and self improvement: you get more than 3 injectors per plex

Really? How do you accomplish this magic?

8,760 hours in a year (non-leap year).
8,760/12 = 730 hours for your "average" month.

To get 4 extractors you will have to skill at about 2,740 SP/hour.

Implants? Well, the theoretical max there is 2,700/hour.

You are just short of covering your average monthly sub costs for the second month.

Further, your argument is basically a market timing argument. You'll be able to tell when selling skill injectors is going to be profitable 30 or so days in advance.

In the end, all you'll end up doing is covering your sub costs more or less once you incur that initial $1,495 cost (possibly $2,990) to start the subs.

Edit: And I don't recall the requirements for attribute enhancing implants, can those be trained on an Alpha account? If not, then you'll definitely spend nearly $3,000 on this scheme.

Teckos, you're taking each month as if it existed as an isolated island. They don't. You end up with a six-month cycle (if my memory serves me), where you get 3 extractions in the first month, followed by four extractions for the next five. It's somewhere around 3.85 extractions per month.

It's profitable right now by about 100 mil per month. Whether it stays that way is to be seen, as prices are quickly reaching an equilibrium.

For what it's worth, though, considering how closely the prices of Extractors, Injectors, and PLEX are tied to each other, I doubt we'll ever see it where you can't PLEX yourself via Extraction.

This is a rough estimated of the break-even points based on an 8-day extraction cycle for PLEX at various values. It's what I suspect Extractors and Injectors will be, at worst (that is, equilibrium with PLEX). I've been wrong before, though.

Yes, on average you can pay for your sub, but the problem with averages is that some months you won't and you'll shell out nearly $1500 to keep the game going.

Tell me which side of a 6 sided die has 3.5 on it?

And in any event, all you end up doing is paying for PLEX for the account, with practically nothing else...and if this crashes the injector market as this moron said, then it won't work at all.

He is a complete dumbass, and there is nothing more arrogant and dismissive than a Goon when he is wrong.

And I'm not saying you couldn't PLEX 100 accounts, but WTF would you? You get minimal return for a crap ton of work. Seriously, you are going to go through 100 accounts to extract some small amount if ISK and with a sunk cost of $3,000 bucks? And as I suspected the first skills you train will have to be cybernetics, and to get +5s you need cybernetics 5 which will mean you'll have to pay 2 months of subs before you can start extracting.

So, somebody who does this will be able to PLEX their account after 2 months...and maybe make a little after 5-6 months...which is worth the hours it would take to do this for 100 accounts and $2,990 up front. No, the assertion is stupid as Hell. Some people might do it with a few accounts, but it is unlikely everyone is going to do it with 100 accounts or even a dozen. Who wants to send that kind of time on a crap ISK source. You'd be better off skilling alts for PI in NS FFS.

Edit: Oh, and put numbers in where you use sell orders for extractors and buy orders for PLEX, it looks even worse. Unless of course you are going to sit there and 0.01 ISK the injectors to max out your take....which with 385 of them on average is going to take a bit. Like I said the opportunity costs here are pretty large, if you are a no life Bad™ living in your parents basement maybe not an issue, but if you have any semblance of a life....

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#718 - 2016-09-01 04:48:00 UTC
Nicolai Serkanner wrote:
I can not believe CCP takes this path. One example: have multiple T1 ganker clones for free. Another one: have dozens of T1 mining alts emptying belts faster than they can spawn.

What are you thinking CCP?

They're not thinking, they've obviously drank way too much electric koolaid.

Pah Cova wrote:
Guess CCP are just tired from this game and wants to end it ASAP.
CCP are not respecting playerbase and are not providing the needed assistance on the numerous bugs they created with this almost monthly updates and i´m not talking about the time the took to answer the tickets (about 3 weeks).
As someone said a few post back, CCP SEAGUL have ruined this game, the decline starts when she assumed the executive direction of this game, I have nothing personally against her, but she´s not the right person to the charge, thats only my oppinion.
Constant socket closed in each account from 10 to 10 minutes one at a time, capacitor not shown the ship cap, api´s not working all the time are just some examples of the bad work that CCP have done and it seems they are not going to be solved in a near future.

Now CCP wants to put more people on game playing in a freemode why?
55.000 players before CCP SEAGUL assumes this game, and 25.000/30.000 players after she assumes this game should mean something and lead CCP into some conclusions.

In other company´s the monthy incoming reduction for bad decisions are not take lightly, but thats in other company´s and it seems CCP dosent need the monthly income and dont want to be reckognize as a successfull gaming devoloper company.
100% correct. Couldn't have said it better myself.

I watched that little BS video of hers and I just couldn't believe the crap I was hearing. Especially the part about how most new players quit because of having to pay a subscription. What a bunch of crock.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Wait, now I'm curious, if people are leaving Eve because they can't pay for it, what exactly is the purpose of wanting to keep people playing that have no money to give to you?

Truth be told, main reason for loss of subscriptions is due to all of the griefer game mechanics allowed to happen in high sec space.

Hulk Miner wrote:
It really does not matter what we say for feedback, this is going to be implemented as per your specifications. Nothing will change, same old.
Definitely agree 100%, especially since this was already scheduled to be implemented before even consulting CSM or doing Beta testing on Singularity (Sisi).

Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#719 - 2016-09-01 04:50:26 UTC
Arry Ghekon wrote:
I'll have to set up a Windows Server 2016 w/ Docker instance in AWS and see if each client can be made completely discrete from each other.
Also, things like MACs, UUIDs, and SIDs can be spoofed or changed. Whether it is "worth" it will depend on how long it takes for the offender's accounts to get banned. If it takes 1 month, hey, it's probably worth the overhead to them. If it takes 2 hours, probably not.
Bot banning has usually been fairly fast on CCP's end, at least to my personal experience. I cannot confirm or deny that other accounts being associated with the reported connection and computers will be permabanned as well.
A possible weak point in VMs is their lack of hardware masking. Each individual component has a unique number at which the system identifies and operates with and I'm not sure how easy it is to fake those on each VM layer without glaring compatibility issues. This should give away most VMs easily.

Naturally, they won't catch all illegal Alpha-Multiboxers yet I would imagine they'd be catching most of them, who would likely be the ones with the most damaging effect.
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#720 - 2016-09-01 04:57:03 UTC
Ghost training returns.... sort of...

Due to the fact that Alpha clones will be so easy to make, and throw away ganking would run rampant, I fear in HIghsec. Having the auto safety On in Alpha states would help reduce the chaos. Just my .02 isk.

I think this will be a beneficial move though.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships