These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

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

First post First post First post
Author
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1461 - 2016-10-28 19:44:07 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
There are somewhere in the region of 2 Million Gnosis. Minus losses this year.
Assuming they never give any more out, zKill says 42,600 approx were lost so far. Even if we double that for non killboarded kills, we haven't put a significant dent in the overall quantity of Gnosis in EVE.
And that's a lifetime kill count since they were introduced.

Eventually they might run out, but for now it's a perfectly reasonable ship to use as an example ship for Alpha clones.


Is that 2 million on the market or on accounts and the market? If it is the latter, deduct those Gnosis for accounts that have lapsed.

"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

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1462 - 2016-10-28 19:59:31 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:


Is that 2 million on the market or on accounts and the market? If it is the latter, deduct those Gnosis for accounts that have lapsed.

On accounts, based on what CCP have given out, and guestimated. So yes, it's an unreliable number, but it puts it in perspective what the supply vs usage is like.
Orbi Deriathan
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1463 - 2016-10-29 08:48:49 UTC
I dont want to pay for the game and be called an omega /lowest of animal hierarchy/. >..>
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1464 - 2016-10-29 14:45:46 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Welisa Aldent wrote:
Pls CCP High sec in eve dosent need more gankers pls do so they Always need to fly in green safty mode..becouse ganking gona get out of hand, even more then it have now.

And btw what do we get? we the subs..so far its only the freeloaders that benefit from this..

I still get to pay and dosent get anything extra,sounds like a cheezy deal for us subs


Try not paying and see what you get.

No, we probably don't need more gankers, but the problem is there is not much else in the way of HS PvP that involves shooting people.

I wonder if putting some effort into the lack lustre wardec system we have might not be the answer to highsec pvp opportunities. It is about time something was done to better encourage highsec wars.
Functionally wardecs work fine. The only issue with them is the lack of reason to defend other than wanting the fight itself. No instance of wardec mechanics has ever addressed that.

The biggest problem with war dec's and a primary reason many aren't defended is; The instance of 1,000 man alliances wardecing 20 man corps. No 20 man corp is going to try to defend when the war they are forced to fight is so unbalanced.

I don't know what the answer is - And CCP don't care, so nothing will be done.

Maybe these new mining /pvp NPC's could be the foundation of an answer for small groups who get wardecced in the future.
But then CCP don't design things with small groups in mind (everyone should team up and form large groups, which of course only create stagnation but.,. CCP think it is best), so creating NPC merc corps that could be hired to join your side in a wardec wouldn't be an option.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1465 - 2016-10-29 18:55:46 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The biggest problem with war dec's and a primary reason many aren't defended is; The instance of 1,000 man alliances wardecing 20 man corps. No 20 man corp is going to try to defend when the war they are forced to fight is so unbalanced.

I don't know what the answer is - And CCP don't care, so nothing will be done.

Maybe these new mining /pvp NPC's could be the foundation of an answer for small groups who get wardecced in the future.
But then CCP don't design things with small groups in mind (everyone should team up and form large groups, which of course only create stagnation but.,. CCP think it is best), so creating NPC merc corps that could be hired to join your side in a wardec wouldn't be an option.

The intent was that these new structures would provide a sufficient force multiplier for small groups to defend against a somewhat larger group. Obviously if you upset a 1,000 man group as a 20 man group you should be steamrolled.
But they then designed the defences around AOE and Null, and failed to leave the highsec defences as much of a multiplier, so it won't do that. For an idea of something they could have done, rather than having just 2 launchers on the Ast. they could have made those 2 launchers able to engage up to 5 targets. So you can't nuke a single target, but you can engage a significant number of targets with each 'battery'. It would require some changes to how things work, and how things group, but that would allow for a structure to be a force multiplier in highsec still without being an instant nuke to any single ship.

Also for one easy way to reduce the 1,000 man corps deccing 20 man corps, while not making it impossible if the 20 man corp really does annoy them seriously. Flip the wardec costs to be based on the number of people in the attacking alliance. Not in the defending alliance (Or even in both, but just on the attacking alliance allows for larger groups to be harassed easily, which is actually a good thing). And accepting new members comes with a cost based on the number of wardecs you have active. Now you want to be small for cheap wardecs, but large to have enough numbers for defending your stuff and attacking other peoples stuff. Good counter pressures on Corp/Alliance size.
Byznich Dahl
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1466 - 2016-11-08 08:03:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Byznich Dahl
I have a question about this new ftp thing that's starting. If, by chance, we decide to stop playing for a mite (unable to afford it or simply bored for a bit), will any implants the character has be destroyed just like when your pod gets blown to bits? I wouldn't care if I had your typical implants, but I've got a fairly pricey set of them and really don't want to lose that much money...and they were a birthday present from my husband. (looks sheepish)...and sometimes I forget when payment is due...

PoiJoy
Byznich Dahl
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1467 - 2016-11-08 08:24:39 UTC
Zifrian wrote:
[quote=Jenn aSide]Alpha clones must NOT be able to light any form of cyno. If not, every single low and null system will have a cloaky alpha clone sitting in it.

I am not normally against cloaky campers (i advocate just dealing with them if they decloak), but FREE cloaky campers? Hell no, every cloaky camper that exists represents a sub or plex and the opportunity costs associated with that. FREE cloakys destroy that.

I know what CCP is trying to achieve. What they will actually achieve is just a bunch of new Tech1 fitted Navy Vexors (don't even need 5 mil SP for that) for veterans. Even if they try the same thing they do with trial accounts (can't be used with paid accounts), there are ways around that.

Think long and hard on this one CCP, you actually can mess up a lot if you don't do this one right.


"The clone state prevents access to powerful skills like Cynosural Field Theory and Cloaking" is what the blog says about Alpha clones. There shouldn't be a worry about it. And, if someone trains up in those and then decides to become a free player, those skills, according to the blog, will simply become inaccessible. So, to assuage all of the concerns about someone slipping into low or null and cloaky camping, it should be alright...as far as that is concerned.

Introducing Clone States...
Morty Friedman
Mortal Logistics
#1468 - 2016-11-08 11:52:07 UTC
Clone states aren't currently working for me, it comes up stating to renew game subscription?
AgentMaster
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1469 - 2016-11-09 22:13:23 UTC
Velores Prokhozai wrote:
Ok, this is the things that I am woried about:

-Alpha accounts should be able to launch only one game instance per computer, point. Also you can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running.

....


Alpha accounts will be able to launch only one game instance per computer? I can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running?
Please - let us to use at least 1 Alpha with 1 Omega! There is a lot of situations that require 2 pilots runing in same time to complete. Even simple moving in unknown low sec and nulls needs a scout. Some anomalies needs... What CCP offer to ppl in that case? Nothing. Force them to pay another account? This is not a offer - this is a force to pay twice for one game. And when i dont have a lot of time to login with these 2 accounts, they will burn the PLEXes doing nothig sitting offline... :(

Blessed is the man who has nothing to say and remain silent yet!!

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1470 - 2016-11-10 02:57:19 UTC
AgentMaster wrote:
Velores Prokhozai wrote:
Ok, this is the things that I am woried about:

-Alpha accounts should be able to launch only one game instance per computer, point. Also you can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running.

....


Alpha accounts will be able to launch only one game instance per computer? I can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running?
Please - let us to use at least 1 Alpha with 1 Omega! There is a lot of situations that require 2 pilots runing in same time to complete. Even simple moving in unknown low sec and nulls needs a scout. Some anomalies needs... What CCP offer to ppl in that case? Nothing. Force them to pay another account? This is not a offer - this is a force to pay twice for one game. And when i dont have a lot of time to login with these 2 accounts, they will burn the PLEXes doing nothig sitting offline... :(

Omega Accounts - They will work exactly as they have for ever.

Alpha Clones aren't being put into the game to help existing players run more accounts, they are to entice the F2P crowd (12 to 15 year olds) into trying Eve.

The restrictions on Alpha Clone logins is to stop exactly what your asking for.,.
You want scouts to keep your Omega account safe while travelling through nul, pay a second sub OR make a friend who likes flying ceptors.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

AgentMaster
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1471 - 2016-11-10 11:16:53 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You want scouts to keep your Omega account safe while travelling through nul, pay a second sub OR make a friend who likes flying ceptors.

And this is already second payment for same product. If CCP wana fair play they will not allow multiaccounting for all Omega-s!

Blessed is the man who has nothing to say and remain silent yet!!

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1472 - 2016-11-10 11:51:49 UTC
AgentMaster wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You want scouts to keep your Omega account safe while travelling through nul, pay a second sub OR make a friend who likes flying ceptors.

And this is already second payment for same product. If CCP wana fair play they will not allow multiaccounting for all Omega-s!

Really?
You want CCP to lose a large % of its income by banning multiboxing?
People have multiple accounts for different reasons, "paying a second" (or 3rd or 5th) subscription to use the product is personal choice, no-one is forcing you to do the same.

I'm currently at 7 active accounts (less than half what I used to maintain) with 19 characters. Each of my characters has a role and I enjoy using them all.

I'll possibly even train up an Alpha clone - Just because I can and to see what the possibilities are.

I would however be interested to hear why you think CCP should ban multiboxing.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Lothar Mandrake
Mandrake Executor Corp
Mandrake Alliance
#1473 - 2016-11-10 17:39:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lothar Mandrake
AgentMaster wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

You want scouts to keep your Omega account safe while travelling through nul, pay a second sub OR make a friend who likes flying ceptors.

And this is already second payment for same product. If CCP wana fair play they will not allow multiaccounting for all Omega-s!


That's just crazy! My Wife and Son play with PAID accounts not because of the levels they can reach but because I genuinely believe funding EVE is the only way to keep it running. Under your idea, how could CCP know it's another real person and not me with multple computers under the same IP address? So only 1 person per house may play?

I agree with the deleting unused accounts idea, but you should change it to 1 year without inactivity for Omega accounts and 6 months for Alpha accounts. Just my opinion. I know you (CCP) set the language to say 90 days for legal reasons. I feel bad for the people who work at CCP, bet all these legal changes have the mood in a not-so-good state around the office.

WarDec's in High Sec are not fixable. They just don't go together. There are too many starter corps trying to skill train for it to exist the way it is. Either dump them or make it only if it's by mutual agreement.

-

Blazemonger Adoulin
BLAZE INC
#1474 - 2016-11-10 18:07:28 UTC
AgentMaster wrote:
[quote=Velores Prokhozai]
Alpha accounts will be able to launch only one game instance per computer? I can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running?
Please - let us to use at least 1 Alpha with 1 Omega!


Provided your desktop setup is half decent it will be trivial to run an alpha in a VM your main runs native. I can't speak for other OS but in Windows 8.1 or 10 this works just fine.

Then again, Alpha clones are not meant for what you want to do and if you do not want to pay for the game you want to play then that really is your personal choice. Drink four beers less a month and you have your second account paid..
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1475 - 2016-11-10 19:12:12 UTC
Blazemonger Adoulin wrote:
AgentMaster wrote:
[quote=Velores Prokhozai]
Alpha accounts will be able to launch only one game instance per computer? I can't launch Alpha if already have Omega running?
Please - let us to use at least 1 Alpha with 1 Omega!


Provided your desktop setup is half decent it will be trivial to run an alpha in a VM your main runs native. I can't speak for other OS but in Windows 8.1 or 10 this works just fine.

Then again, Alpha clones are not meant for what you want to do and if you do not want to pay for the game you want to play then that really is your personal choice. Drink four beers less a month and you have your second account paid..

The hardware profile of your machine might just give CCP a little hint of what you are doing - To get yourself banned.

Hint; Go read the EULA

While you may get away with it for a while, eventually the security team will stumble across you and when they do that ban hammer swings fast.
An alternative to beating the EULA would be to use a second machine on the same network and tell CCP it is your son, daughter, wife or pet dog (Ralph) playing the account - Again, just don't get caught.

The far safest way to ensure you don't get banned, is to not breach the EULA.
-- - -- - --
Being a multiboxer I was at first a little disappointed with the limits on logons for Alpha's. After thinking about it, I came around and realized, Alpha accounts were never meant for multiboxers and had the potential to simply break parts of Eve gameplay.

If you need a second account (or more), there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to pay for it in game without using Alpha's to prop up your one man (or woman) fleet.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Blazemonger Adoulin
BLAZE INC
#1476 - 2016-11-12 00:19:51 UTC
Running 7 accounts myself currently I completely agree with what you write and yes I know using a VM is a breach of EULA. My point was that you can but that you shouldn't as it bypasses the intent of the Alpha account.

Talking of Alpha accounts, was an updates skillset list ever released as I believe things changed. I would like to get an alpha character ready for my stream the 15th and would like to have him or her skilled up before then (with some help :P )
Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#1477 - 2016-11-12 00:29:50 UTC
Quote:
Alpha characters may not be logged in simultaneously from the same location as other active EVE Online clients. For details please see our End User License Agreement


What does this mean exactly ?
I could go to coffee shop and try to play eve online on my notebook, but because their wi-fi is free and open, someone 150 meters away could also try to play eve online with alpha character via their wi-fi (same ip).

Does this mean i will not be able to connect via the same ip or is this locked onto device (as per device) ?
TD746
Banana-Republic.
HERO Coalition.
#1478 - 2016-11-12 22:59:16 UTC
So i was told to bring this up and I see its already being discussed somewhat.

CCP,

I know you are dedicated to stopping multiboxing with Alphaclones, but from a business standpoint, if the directive is to provide an easy-to-enter experience for a new player.

A highly probable route of entry is going to be people coming over to someone's house and someone being like "you wanna try EVE? its FTP now....lets set you up an account"

With IP based banning that wont be possible.

Youre balancing the security and integrity of hte game vs. the prospect of new players.


I am of the _business_ opinion, that a game as complex as this needs all the extra help and ease-of-entry it can possibly muster.


My first days playing eve were spent with my exroommate in the same room. Under these rules with alpha clones That wont happen.

You guys dont need to explain to me the potential for abuse here,full disclosure , I work in virtualization and i know very well what threat /challenge this poses poses architecturally.

Im just asking if you havent considered this concern...please do so.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#1479 - 2016-11-13 01:55:13 UTC
Spc One wrote:
Quote:
Alpha characters may not be logged in simultaneously from the same location as other active EVE Online clients. For details please see our End User License Agreement


What does this mean exactly ?
I could go to coffee shop and try to play eve online on my notebook, but because their wi-fi is free and open, someone 150 meters away could also try to play eve online with alpha character via their wi-fi (same ip).

Does this mean i will not be able to connect via the same ip or is this locked onto device (as per device) ?

As dynamic IP's are the most common these days I would imagine logins would be via device not IP.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Spc One
The Chodak
Void Alliance
#1480 - 2016-11-13 04:31:00 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Spc One wrote:
Quote:
Alpha characters may not be logged in simultaneously from the same location as other active EVE Online clients. For details please see our End User License Agreement


What does this mean exactly ?
I could go to coffee shop and try to play eve online on my notebook, but because their wi-fi is free and open, someone 150 meters away could also try to play eve online with alpha character via their wi-fi (same ip).

Does this mean i will not be able to connect via the same ip or is this locked onto device (as per device) ?

As dynamic IP's are the most common these days I would imagine logins would be via device not IP.

My ISP is used by alot of companies, and they strictly have static IP's, especially for business users.

This means that coffee shops and other businesses have static IP's.