These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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: Clone States – Post Announcement Follow-up

First post
Author
Keno Skir
#161 - 2016-09-05 11:46:18 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I drink a moderate amount of wine and beer, never touch drugs, only idiots do that.


No mate, idiots talk about alcohol and other narcotics as if they are somehow different.

I'm kinda looking forward to the clusterf*ck that's coming. That follow up release basically said "We've heard the two things you guys really care about, and we'd like to be extremely evasive and talk around the subjects a bit without really saying anything. You're all welcome."



You are rather off topic mate and here is the reply I gave to yet another low life who replied with the same sort of thing in a Star Citizen organisation, you smoke pot or take a drug to get high, there are people who drink to get drunk, that is the same as what you just said, people like me drink a glass of wine to compliment a fine meal, that you are a barbarian who has no idea of the finer things in life is your issue not mine. Yes they are different, if people have the wit to treat them differently...

That said your next paragraph actually made sense because the key issues that people raised were actually ignored in this follow up. Yes it will be a cluster feck, I will be logging on in November to chat to mates every so often, but that is all I will be doing, I will not be undocking.


And what about the beer is that to compliment a fine kebab? Roll

Hilti Enaka
Alpha Republic - Transcenders of Space and Time
Solyaris Chtonium
#162 - 2016-09-05 14:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Hilti Enaka
I am still not convinced this is what the game needs.

It feels like a complete screw over to loyal customers who paid their dues, you should really be focussing on those players rather than bastardising the system. You are making a lot of investment in this without really knowing it will work. Just what exactly are you trying to achieve with this? If you are trying to attract new players this is proven in many industries to be the wrong focus because of the cost.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#163 - 2016-09-05 14:58:55 UTC
Keno Skir wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Keno Skir wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I drink a moderate amount of wine and beer, never touch drugs, only idiots do that.


No mate, idiots talk about alcohol and other narcotics as if they are somehow different.

I'm kinda looking forward to the clusterf*ck that's coming. That follow up release basically said "We've heard the two things you guys really care about, and we'd like to be extremely evasive and talk around the subjects a bit without really saying anything. You're all welcome."



You are rather off topic mate and here is the reply I gave to yet another low life who replied with the same sort of thing in a Star Citizen organisation, you smoke pot or take a drug to get high, there are people who drink to get drunk, that is the same as what you just said, people like me drink a glass of wine to compliment a fine meal, that you are a barbarian who has no idea of the finer things in life is your issue not mine. Yes they are different, if people have the wit to treat them differently...

That said your next paragraph actually made sense because the key issues that people raised were actually ignored in this follow up. Yes it will be a cluster feck, I will be logging on in November to chat to mates every so often, but that is all I will be doing, I will not be undocking.


And what about the beer is that to compliment a fine kebab? Roll



With hot chili sauce, of course...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Old Man Sam
Fishy Old Men in Space
#164 - 2016-09-05 20:48:20 UTC
I think I have created a solution for Alpha clone hoards mining in highsec, through a several step plan.

1. Remove the venture from Alpha clones. Now I know this sounds like blasphemy since mining is usually the first thing a new player does, but hear me out. Back when I started this game the logistics frigates had a mining bonus. If we give that bonus back, new players can mine at about 1/3rd the efficiency that a venture can (before logi frigate bonus), but with 1/10th the cargo hold thus requiring active mining, or jet cans. It also makes sense since Alpha's can only fly their race, and ore vessels are at best their own race, and and worst Gallente. (Which would be very unfair). Gives people a reason to upgrade to an Omega clone.

2. New highsec relic and data sites, called novice or some other cool name (doesn’t really matter). These sites will spawn only in highsec, and will be gated unlike other relic and data sites. The only ships that can enter are T1 frigates and below, perfect for new players. They should have the same or fractionally better loot tables than current highsec relic and data sites (which is trash anyway) but maybe have a few really rare drops that make it not worth for a veteran player to grind through in crappy T1 exploration frigates, but good enough for a new player to get lucky and get a bit of money.

3. Push new players into exploration instead of mining. Its more active, and generally more interesting than mining, and impossible to automate through botting.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#165 - 2016-09-06 07:08:31 UTC
So Alpha scrubs won't even be able to use small T2 guns? That sounds totally useless then. I think they should be able to use T2 guns of small and possibly medium size. And I say that as someone who will probably never play as an Alpha. As long as I play this game, my accounts will always be paid with money as they have been the past ~7 years. But people with T1 guns can never be competitive in pvp, the one thing that will hook up most people for a serious career in EVE. A player with limited experience trying pvp in T1 fits will most likely fail, and then fail again, and then give up. Allowing small but decently fitted ships is much more likely to give them experiences of success, making them want to play more and also get the bigger and more advanced ships.

I don't think many more people will engage in suicide ganking than before, the limiting resource is time. I'm not interested in ganking and most other players also aren't. Making it easier for me does not make it more likely that I'll do it. Those who are into ganking are already doing it.

So I don't see a huge influx of new actual players who start ganking. But I guess there is the danger that the active gankers that are already out there will be able to do much more damage more easily. So you should limit the number of alpha accounts per actual player... to one. And disallow rapid account recycling. If someone is as dedicated to EVE that they want multiple accounts, they should pay or plex. Alpha gameplay should be for newbies, casuals and returning players who aren't sure yet. With the limitations, playing as an Alpha will not be a tolerable long-term situation for any serious player anyway.

The easiest way to limit accounts would be requiring credit card info. But that would leave some groups of players out in the cold: Minors and many people from third-world countries or in general poor or financially troubled people that don't have a credit card and, being poor, would be the likeliest users of Alpha gameplay. So it would be preferable to find another way players can reliably authenticate themselves.

.

Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#166 - 2016-09-06 12:47:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Drazz Caylen
Related Devblog wrote:
Probably the clearest point to emerge so far has been a request to limit simultaneous log on for Alphas. The concern here is obviously justified as swarms of free alts could potentially have any number of negative effects on the game. That said, there’s significant complexity here, especially on the technical side. We are exploring options to address this and also consulting our security and customer support team.

If trial limitation works on 1-per-computer, why can't you include the Alpha account state in this restriction as well? Were are these technical difficulties located? I doubt this is an isssue with reworking the data to not rely on a boolean variable (subscription 0 / 1), because Alphas are by definition not subscribed. I'm still curious as to why it supposedly won't work and where the technical difficulties are behind it. I'm not saying you're incompetent, and neither do I say I have a better solution. This is me searching to understand the given circumstances.

The other big question here is;
What prevents you from agreeing that more than one Alpha account running simultaneously is bad and you're working hard to get this limitation going? We have 1 trial on a computer ONLY for good reasons. Why are you not saying the same about Alphas? What made you think running more than one Alpha (or running one Alpha beside many Omegas) is a good idea? Because if you thought it was a bad idea, then you clearly would have said "1 Alpha only" flat out the door.

It's this beating around the bush that has me concerned more than anything else.

Limiting Alphas to 1 per computer only is alleviating almost every issue brought to concern. Why are you not giving us the feeling and assuredness to be making this THE end goal? Instead I read you're "exploring options" as if the prevention of simultaneous Alpha logins could not be established and thus needs to be scrapped. This is the feeling I'm getting. This is the feeling many others get. This causes all this ruckus. One simply confirmation of you will bring the sigh of relief we ask for.

With the 1-per-computer limitation, Alpha accounts become just as much an "issue" as Trial accounts are. And to the fearmongers; tell me where the masses of illegally multiboxing Trial account Gank and mining fleets are? Yeah I thought so.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#167 - 2016-09-06 12:55:43 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:

The other big question here is;
What prevents you from agreeing that more than one Alpha account running simultaneously is bad and you're working hard to get this limitation going? We have 1 trial on a computer ONLY for good reasons. Why are you not saying the same about Alphas? What made you think running more than one Alpha (or running one Alpha beside many Omegas) is a good idea? Because if you thought it was a bad idea, then you clearly would have said "1 Alpha only" flat out the door.


Because it is too easy to avoid this restriction. There are many ways. :)
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#168 - 2016-09-06 13:07:11 UTC
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Because it is too easy to avoid this restriction. There are many ways. :)
You missed the point.
It's about if it is against the "rules" or not. Not making a rule based on "oh well the community will break it anyway" is laughably stupid, and if you base your entire argument on it, you're not putting yourself into the best of light either.

Saying there are ways doesn't mean these way are also always successful to work, since CCP has the legal right to scan our computer for hardware and software solutions which are circumventing these rules. If you think VMs and VPNs help you stay invisible and make the servers think you are all logging in from different locations, you're naive. The multi-input from ISboxer was banned for a reason too, and successfully so.

If those ways you talk about are so handy-dandy available, then why are we not seeing swarms of trial account with Ventures swirling through rocks and suicide Catalysts tickling down ships?
Really, I think you're talking out your backside. Not every "what-if" is a notion worth contemplating to all it's extent.
Warlord Balrog
303rd X-SOLDIER
#169 - 2016-09-06 13:33:31 UTC
Drazz Caylen wrote:
If trial limitation works on 1-per-computer, why can't you include the Alpha account state in this restriction as well? Were are these technical difficulties located? I doubt this is an isssue with reworking the data to not rely on a boolean variable (subscription 0 / 1), because Alphas are by definition not subscribed. I'm still curious as to why it supposedly won't work and where the technical difficulties are behind it. I'm not saying you're incompetent, and neither do I say I have a better solution. This is me searching to understand the given circumstances.

The other big question here is;
What prevents you from agreeing that more than one Alpha account running simultaneously is bad and you're working hard to get this limitation going? We have 1 trial on a computer ONLY for good reasons. Why are you not saying the same about Alphas? What made you think running more than one Alpha (or running one Alpha beside many Omegas) is a good idea? Because if you thought it was a bad idea, then you clearly would have said "1 Alpha only" flat out the door.

It's this beating around the bush that has me concerned more than anything else.

Limiting Alphas to 1 per computer only is alleviating almost every issue brought to concern. Why are you not giving us the feeling and assuredness to be making this THE end goal? Instead I read you're "exploring options" as if the prevention of simultaneous Alpha logins could not be established and thus needs to be scrapped. This is the feeling I'm getting. This is the feeling many others get. This causes all this ruckus. One simply confirmation of you will bring the sigh of relief we ask for.

With the 1-per-computer limitation, Alpha accounts become just as much an "issue" as Trial accounts are. And to the fearmongers; tell me where the masses of illegally multiboxing Trial account Gank and mining fleets are? Yeah I thought so.


Trial limitations can be circumvented a number of ways, none of which I will list. And by making alphas work like trials you will be preventing most of the player base that cannot afford subs occasionally the joy of the game. Will that make people pay? Doubtful. Will that make more people give up on the game? Probably. Will it improve the game? It'll will make abuse slightly more annoying, yes, but doubtful in many aspects.

Running alphas and omegas from the same user prevents the alphas from socializing. One could simply pay for one account (in a marauder for example) running level 4s with their alphas sitting in station safely gaining LP and ISK from the kills the marauder is doing. In the same token, alphas won't be able to run with major alliances. So your newbros won't be able to play with you, only other newbros... who will teach them? The person with a laptop googling "how to eve" every 5 minutes when a new 'event' occurs.

The only limitation alphas should have as far as any of these concerns is preventing someone from making 40 toons that are completely free and ruining someone who has less than five accounts' day. For example, a solo mission runner in a shiny ship getting alpha ganked out of his mission by FREE players. Another fine example is a small multiboxing group (Compact players as I like to call them) that are out mining could also have their day ruined. Many other examples should come to mind now, and this is detriment to EVE's existance if they are not addressed.
Drazz Caylen
Team-Pyro Industries
#170 - 2016-09-06 14:02:15 UTC
Warlord Balrog wrote:
1) Trial limitations can be circumvented a number of ways, none of which I will list. And by making alphas work like trials you will be preventing most of the player base that cannot afford subs occasionally the joy of the game.

2) Running alphas and omegas from the same user prevents the alphas from socializing. One could simply pay for one account (in a marauder for example) running level 4s with their alphas sitting in station safely gaining LP and ISK from the kills the marauder is doing. In the same token, alphas won't be able to run with major alliances. So your newbros won't be able to play with you, only other newbros... who will teach them? The person with a laptop googling "how to eve" every 5 minutes when a new 'event' occurs.

3) The only limitation alphas should have as far as any of these concerns is preventing someone from making 40 toons that are completely free and ruining someone who has less than five accounts' day.
1) I never said they should replace Trials. CCP themselves said they'll be reworking Trials, so a Trial =/= Alpha. I only said Alphas should have the same login limitation which Trials have. To date someone yet has to point out to me a gross abuse of Trial accounts seen in the game which puts Eve to a detriment.

2) I'm not sure I understand what you say, because it looks like you're contradicting with your own point 1. Why shouldn't alphas be able to socialize when limited to 1 Alpha per computer? That would mean Trials cannot socialize either, and those are currently time limited, whereas Alphas are not. As to who will teach them... is this a serious question? It will just work the same as with Trial accounts. Trial account players still are taught by others how to play the game. Forgive me, what are you trying to say again? I'm really at a loss here.

3) Which is exactly why I said limit Alphas to 1 login per computer. And which contradicts with your very own point 1, because as you said yourself "can be circumvented in a number of ways". If you so firmly believe CCP is outwitted by laymen's tech left and right, why even bother? I still see it as a staggering hyperbole. Which is probably good, so it can rain more permabans later, including the subscribed accounts related to the machine where the abuse took place.
Kilo Kodiak
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#171 - 2016-09-07 19:00:04 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Kilo Kodiak wrote:
I have a simple question ///

P I?

Plante interaction as a alfa clone?

if you have like 5 million skill points in P I and it was showing to other player can mine why can not the do P I ?



stop doing anything.
read the dev blog.
there is a list of skills that are available to alpha clones.
thats what they can use.

PI is not on that list.


why do you limit yourself????

why will you allow others to limit you more than you are now?

current the system allow trail account to P >I> which is mining.. should we cut that away?

ccp place the design and the codes... but we are EVE.. we should learn and tell them what we want and not.

EVE is us.
Grodd2
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
#172 - 2016-09-07 19:38:06 UTC
As the condition in High sec is now, there is so much competition for resources that there is little good mining opportunities for a great portion of every day. If there is an influx of new players with mining goals, it will make the situation even worse.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#173 - 2016-09-07 21:08:19 UTC
So long as multiple log ins are possible this is going to hurt
Lugh Crow-Slave
#174 - 2016-09-07 21:09:57 UTC
Kilo Kodiak wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Kilo Kodiak wrote:
I have a simple question ///

P I?

Plante interaction as a alfa clone?

if you have like 5 million skill points in P I and it was showing to other player can mine why can not the do P I ?



stop doing anything.
read the dev blog.
there is a list of skills that are available to alpha clones.
thats what they can use.

PI is not on that list.


why do you limit yourself????

why will you allow others to limit you more than you are now?

current the system allow trail account to P >I> which is mining.. should we cut that away?

ccp place the design and the codes... but we are EVE.. we should learn and tell them what we want and not.

EVE is us.



Because you can make a lot more with 100 free pi alts than 100 level 4 venture alts and with a lot less effort
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#175 - 2016-09-07 22:17:54 UTC
Grodd2 wrote:
As the condition in High sec is now, there is so much competition for resources that there is little good mining opportunities for a great portion of every day. If there is an influx of new players with mining goals, it will make the situation even worse.

Like or dislike alpha clones this statement of yours is totally incorrect.
Just go a couple of jumps away from Jita and you will find untouched belts just before downtime. Go outside Caldari space and you will find buckets of ore. And refining it makes it quite easy to move. It may not be 'ideal' but it's there and easy to access, and still perfectly good.
violator2k5
Crescent Nova
#176 - 2016-09-08 11:51:14 UTC
ArmyOfMe wrote:
First page again \o/

Oh, and great stuff. I do hope this will help to rejuvenate the playerbase.
Wish it had happend sooner, but i still love this idea.


rejuvenate? lol

I'm more curious about the increase in potential isk selling spammers this may bring.
Belinda HwaFang
Iris Kinetics - Aquisitions
#177 - 2016-09-08 14:42:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Belinda HwaFang
Apologies in advance if this has already been covered by another post, and sorry I didn't have time to read the full thread.

Does creation of one of these Alpha clone accounts require the customer to hand over a credit card number? Or is it just an email address required?

If it is the latter, is CCP ready for the massive increase in EULA breaking behaviour and "hacking" that is going to occur?

If you need a reference: I recommend you study the original Planetside, which removed the credit card info as a requirement to creating free accounts circa 2006 I believe it was, leading to a great influx of players *and* causing the game to be so full of EULA violations that eventually legitimate players were starting to be forced out.

Just make sure you've done the cost-benefit analysis here CCP, the strain on your GM/Security teams is going to increase like never before if you don't tie these accounts to credit cards.
HandelsPharmi
Pharmi on CharBazaar
#178 - 2016-09-08 15:06:07 UTC
Belinda HwaFang wrote:
Apologies in advance if this has already been covered by another post, and sorry I didn't have time to read the full thread.

Does creation of one of these Alpha clone accounts require the customer to hand over a credit card number? Or is it just an email address required?

If it is the latter, is CCP ready for the massive increase in EULA breaking behaviour and "hacking" that is going to occur?

If you need a reference: I recommend you study the original Planetside, which removed the credit card info as a requirement to creating free accounts circa 2006 I believe it was, leading to a great influx of players *and* causing the game to be so full of EULA violations that eventually legitimate players were starting to be forced out.

Just make sure you've done the cost-benefit analysis here CCP, the strain on your GM/Security teams is going to increase like never before if you don't tie these accounts to credit cards.



I have around 40 accounts, and non of them has ever been subscribed by real cash, PLEX only.
Cause I have bougth game trading cards (in past) and converted them to 2 PLEX...

If you are violating the EULA, CCP is going to ban ALL your accounts.
Belinda HwaFang
Iris Kinetics - Aquisitions
#179 - 2016-09-08 17:15:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Belinda HwaFang
HandelsPharmi wrote:
Belinda HwaFang wrote:
Apologies in advance if this has already been covered by another post, and sorry I didn't have time to read the full thread.

Does creation of one of these Alpha clone accounts require the customer to hand over a credit card number? Or is it just an email address required?

If it is the latter, is CCP ready for the massive increase in EULA breaking behaviour and "hacking" that is going to occur?

If you need a reference: I recommend you study the original Planetside, which removed the credit card info as a requirement to creating free accounts circa 2006 I believe it was, leading to a great influx of players *and* causing the game to be so full of EULA violations that eventually legitimate players were starting to be forced out.

Just make sure you've done the cost-benefit analysis here CCP, the strain on your GM/Security teams is going to increase like never before if you don't tie these accounts to credit cards.



I have around 40 accounts, and non of them has ever been subscribed by real cash, PLEX only.
Cause I have bougth game trading cards (in past) and converted them to 2 PLEX...

If you are violating the EULA, CCP is going to ban ALL your accounts.


That is assuming they know the superset of all your accounts, past and future. Yes, they can IP block you, but IP addresses aren't an authenticated address, so those with the knowhow/cash to use a subscription hacking service will be able to play a game of cat and mouse with the infosec team at CCP.

To answer your point that it's already possible to get somewhat anonymised accounts, I was under the impression that GTC sales were stopped some time ago, so this channel of anonymous accounts I believe has already been closed.

My point isn't that the sky is falling (although this is not a change I welcome), my point is I want CCP to be aware of the extra budget their infosec team is undoubtably going to need to deal with this issue. Hopefully CCP being quite an infosec savvy company they already have some plans in place, but I just want to raise awareness on this usually neglected issue.

If the rate at which players are breaking the EULA is so great that your incident response team can not handle them/ban them quickly enough, you have a big problem.
Relyt Remarc
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#180 - 2016-09-08 20:36:03 UTC
Does this new clone state stuff mean that an alt on my subbed account won't be able to fly anything T2 any more? Will any character on a subbed account have omega status regardless of whether or not the training Que is active?