These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

A GM's guide to Alpha clone re-balancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#1 - 2017-05-04 19:39:30 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Its time to tinker with the Alpha!

A previous post got a bit off topic so I thought I would separate it into a new post.
Four areas that have been Identified on a previous post about Tech 1 haulers and alpha clones.
here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=517770&p=3

Points of Imbalance.

1. EWAR skills:
Both Caldari and Amarr have ECM and weapon disruption, which would make sense as they are allies. But Gallente and Minmatar also have access to these skills, plus their own EWAR skills why?

2. Tech 1 Haulers:
Gallente specialized haulers are only available to Gallente and makes for significant advantage over all other non-Gallente hauler oriented characters.

3. Battleships & Battlecruisers
From what people in the last thread wrote they seem to be all on the same page that Alpha's should be able to fly better more expensive ships on account ISK values are a built in deterrent to abuse.

4. Alpha in Pirate ships.
This seems to be an issue raised with the Stratios and Gila ships being great ships. It seems that they are such great ships and ISK makers potentially they are "to good" for Alphas.

Solutions offed in the last post.

1. Remove non-PVP (web/warp disruption) EWAR skills from Gallente and Minmatar Alpha clones.

2. Make specialized Gallente hauler licences available to all Alpha clones. New tech 1 ships that were specialized haulers for other races.

3. Add in decaying skill injection for Battleship & Battlecruisers. Allow alphas to train these ship command skills.

4. Pirate ships are great maybe make another set of faction ships available to alphas that aren't as good as Stratios and the Gila.

Please help Identify and more points of imbalance. If you think you have a better solution then what is presented please post it.
Carnivorous Swarm
Doomheim
#2 - 2017-05-04 20:06:12 UTC
1. All types of EWAR is used in PVP. Minmitar and Gallente have ships bonused for their flavor of EWAR, so it makes sense for them to get those skills. Propulsion Jamming is critical to PVP so it makes sense everyone to gets that skill. Weapon Disruption in important so CCP was nice and gave it to everyone.

2. No. Re-tier specialized haulers so Alphas cannot use them (Gallente Industrial II).

3. I think Battlecruisers are fair since they have the Gnosis anyway. No to Battleships. Alphas currently do not have access to large weapon systems, so they'd have to get that too. Do we give heavy and sentry drones? Now you'd have Alpha VNI farms in null.

4. Why are we adding content for Alphas? Alpha players are trial players.
Marika Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2017-05-04 20:09:27 UTC
hog butter wrote:
Its time to tinker with the Alpha!

A previous post got a bit off topic so I thought I would separate it into a new post.
Four areas that have been Identified on a previous post about Tech 1 haulers and alpha clones.
here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=517770&p=3

Points of Imbalance.

1. EWAR skills:
Both Caldari and Amarr have ECM and weapon disruption, which would make sense as they are allies. But Gallente and Minmatar also have access to these skills, plus their own EWAR skills why?

2. Tech 1 Haulers:
Gallente specialized haulers are only available to Gallente and makes for significant advantage over all other non-Gallente hauler oriented characters.

3. Battleships & Battlecruisers
From what people in the last thread wrote they seem to be all on the same page that Alpha's should be able to fly better more expensive ships on account ISK values are a built in deterrent to abuse.

4. Do not allow Alpha's to use Pirate faction ships.
This seems to be an issue raised with the Stratios and Gila ships. It seems that they are such great ships and ISK makers potentially they are "to good" for Alphas.

Solutions offed in the last post.

1. Remove non-PVP (web/warp disruption) EWAR skills from Gallente and Minmatar Alpha clones.

2. Make specialized Gallente hauler licences available to all Alpha clones. New tech 1 ships that were specialized haulers for other races.

3. Add in decaying skill injection for Battleship & Battlecruisers. Allow alphas to train these ship command skills.

4. Pirate ships are great maybe make another set of faction ships available to alphas that aren't as good as Stratios and the Gila.

Please help Identify and more points of imbalance. If you think you have a better solution then what is presented please post it.


1. Don't know the exact skill layout of alphas, can't comment.

2. Make a Gallente alpha, problem solved.

3. Nope nope nope nope nope nope. I know you want free stuff, but CCP needs to keep the shinys just out of reach so that people have an incentive to actually subscribe. They kind of need the sub money...

4. They cannot fly pirate ships. Why? See point 3. More free stuff for alphas = less incentive = less money = bad. It's not hard.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#4 - 2017-05-04 20:25:15 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Marika Sunji wrote:


1. Don't know the exact skill layout of alphas, can't comment.

2. Make a Gallente alpha, problem solved.

3. Nope nope nope nope nope nope. I know you want free stuff, but CCP needs to keep the shinys just out of reach so that people have an incentive to actually subscribe. They kind of need the sub money...

4. They cannot fly pirate ships. Why? See point 3. More free stuff for alphas = less incentive = less money = bad. It's not hard.



Yes but this pretends that EVE has no problems with attracting new players. New players also not having an insane ergonomic challenging to learn the game not to mention learning curve within the game as far as PVP and PVE interactions. I have taught 6 people how to play EVE personally. You know how many are playing now 0. I am not saying their is a crisis in the game but if this isn't addressed at some point EVE may go the way of the dodo bird. I'm just saying EVE has and needs to continue to repackage and reprocesses its self mainly ergonomically also visually to keep up with video game playing population. I'm not even sure CCP even wants/ has the resources to generate content and also reform aging aspects.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#5 - 2017-05-04 20:37:42 UTC
1. Needs some consistency.
2. Deny them to all alphas.
3. No
4. No.

Other points of imbalance,

Minnie should have logi drones and medium drones.
Gal should have heavy drones.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#6 - 2017-05-04 20:40:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Linus Gorp
hog butter wrote:
Marika Sunji wrote:


1. Don't know the exact skill layout of alphas, can't comment.

2. Make a Gallente alpha, problem solved.

3. Nope nope nope nope nope nope. I know you want free stuff, but CCP needs to keep the shinys just out of reach so that people have an incentive to actually subscribe. They kind of need the sub money...

4. They cannot fly pirate ships. Why? See point 3. More free stuff for alphas = less incentive = less money = bad. It's not hard.



Yes but this pretends that EVE has no problems with attracting new players. New players also not having an insane ergonomic challenging to learn the game not to mention learning curve within the game as far as PVP and PVE interactions. I have taught 6 people how to play EVE personally. You know how many are playing now 0. I am not saying their is a crisis in the game but if this isn't addressed at some point EVE may go the way of the dodo bird. I'm just saying EVE has and needs to continue to repackage and reprocesses its self mainly ergonomically also visually to keep up with video game playing population. I'm not even sure CCP even wants/ has the resources to generate content and also reform aging aspects.

EVE has been dying for 14 years. It's a niche game that doesn't appeal to a lot of players and it also has the hardest learning curve of any MMO (I know), so your "test subset" of 6 players doesn't say anything at all.

People these days are used to handholding and instant gratification and most can't deal without it. EVE is the exact opposite to that.

It's just not a game for everyone and that's not a bug, that's a feature. I have no interest in playing WoW with spaceships.


And my on-topic reply: If anything, alphas need more restrictions. If CCP goes along and gives them more stuff, they'll keep asking for more stuff and it won't stop. Alpha players are cannon fodder at best. They're supposed to try the game in their own time and then sub if they like it. If they don't, they can leave. If they expect more stuff without paying for it, they can **** off and spread their pathetic mentality somewhere else.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Marika Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#7 - 2017-05-04 20:46:35 UTC
hog butter wrote:
Marika Sunji wrote:


1. Don't know the exact skill layout of alphas, can't comment.

2. Make a Gallente alpha, problem solved.

3. Nope nope nope nope nope nope. I know you want free stuff, but CCP needs to keep the shinys just out of reach so that people have an incentive to actually subscribe. They kind of need the sub money...

4. They cannot fly pirate ships. Why? See point 3. More free stuff for alphas = less incentive = less money = bad. It's not hard.



Yes but this pretends that EVE has no problems with attracting new players. New players also not having an insane ergonomic challenging to learn the game not to mention learning curve within the game as far as PVP and PVE interactions. I have taught 6 people how to play EVE personally. You know how many are playing now 0. I am not saying their is a crisis in the game but if this isn't addressed at some point EVE may go the way of the dodo bird. I'm just saying EVE has and needs to continue to repackage and reprocesses its self mainly ergonomically also visually to keep up with video game playing population. I'm not even sure CCP even wants/ has the resources to generate content and also reform aging aspects.


There's a problem with an approach like this though. You have no guarantee of attracting new (Omega) players. Alphas are irrelevant here since they generate no or negligible income for CCP. However, making significant parts of the game's lineup (battleships, bcs, large guns, even pirate ships) to everyone could actually result in a net loss of omega players, since why pay for something you can get for free. EVE will probably die at some point, but rapidly changing directions and trying to appeal to a different playerbase is an extremely risky move.
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale
#8 - 2017-05-04 20:51:33 UTC
Marika Sunji wrote:
hog butter wrote:
Marika Sunji wrote:


1. Don't know the exact skill layout of alphas, can't comment.

2. Make a Gallente alpha, problem solved.

3. Nope nope nope nope nope nope. I know you want free stuff, but CCP needs to keep the shinys just out of reach so that people have an incentive to actually subscribe. They kind of need the sub money...

4. They cannot fly pirate ships. Why? See point 3. More free stuff for alphas = less incentive = less money = bad. It's not hard.



Yes but this pretends that EVE has no problems with attracting new players. New players also not having an insane ergonomic challenging to learn the game not to mention learning curve within the game as far as PVP and PVE interactions. I have taught 6 people how to play EVE personally. You know how many are playing now 0. I am not saying their is a crisis in the game but if this isn't addressed at some point EVE may go the way of the dodo bird. I'm just saying EVE has and needs to continue to repackage and reprocesses its self mainly ergonomically also visually to keep up with video game playing population. I'm not even sure CCP even wants/ has the resources to generate content and also reform aging aspects.


There's a problem with an approach like this though. You have no guarantee of attracting new (Omega) players. Alphas are irrelevant here since they generate no or negligible income for CCP. However, making significant parts of the game's lineup (battleships, bcs, large guns, even pirate ships) to everyone could actually result in a net loss of omega players, since why pay for something you can get for free. EVE will probably die at some point, but rapidly changing directions and trying to appeal to a different playerbase is an extremely risky move.

Because CCP hasn't been chasing that millenial gamer instant gratification crowd for years now, have they?
The game isn't in its current state for no reason. CCP took a gamble with their direction, alienated a non-negligible part of their playerbase and so far have yet to see a return on that investment.

What CCP needs is some half-decent competition so they stop slacking around and stop with that **** that's been going on for far too long now.
We can't go anywhere else and they know it and that's the only reason they're still in business.

When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
Cade Windstalker
#9 - 2017-05-04 21:00:30 UTC
hog butter wrote:
Points of Imbalance.

1. EWAR skills:
Both Caldari and Amarr have ECM and weapon disruption, which would make sense as they are allies. But Gallente and Minmatar also have access to these skills, plus their own EWAR skills why?

2. Tech 1 Haulers:
Gallente specialized haulers are only available to Gallente and makes for significant advantage over all other non-Gallente hauler oriented characters.

3. Battleships & Battlecruisers
From what people in the last thread wrote they seem to be all on the same page that Alpha's should be able to fly better more expensive ships on account ISK values are a built in deterrent to abuse.

4. Alpha in Pirate ships.
This seems to be an issue raised with the Stratios and Gila ships being great ships. It seems that they are such great ships and ISK makers potentially they are "to good" for Alphas.



  1. Probably because ECM and Tracking Disruption are considered more basic and useful skills without a bonus, where Target Painting aren't? I dunno, doesn't make a ton of sense to me either, especially the lack of Target Painting for Caldari.

  2. I personally agree and think this should be addressed somehow.

  3. Disagree, personally. Partly because this pushes Alphas over the 5.5m limit for skill point extraction, and would put a lot of skills into the realm of being unable to be extracted by older characters due to alpha skill restrictions on extraction, but because Alphas are supposed to be a limited trial, and being able to fly a BC or BS significantly increases the amount of things Alphas can do at a high proficiency level and the impact they can have, which opens them up to abuse as alts.

  4. No idea who told you Alphas could use pirate hulls at all but they can't. Alphas can't use the hulls and even if they could they can't train the skills to use them since they require two different racial ship skills and Alphas can only train one race's ships.

hog butter
Romex Inc.
#10 - 2017-05-04 21:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Linus Gorp wrote:

People these days are used to handholding and instant gratification and most can't deal without it. EVE is the exact opposite to that.

It's just not a game for everyone and that's not a bug, that's a feature. I have no interest in playing WoW with spaceships.


And my on-topic reply: If anything, alphas need more restrictions. If CCP goes along and gives them more stuff, they'll keep asking for more stuff and it won't stop. Alpha players are cannon fodder at best. They're supposed to try the game in their own time and then sub if they like it. If they don't, they can leave. If they expect more stuff without paying for it, they can **** off and spread their pathetic mentality somewhere else.



I get the hand holding part...

Off Topic:
Alpha needs more restrictions is a terrible way to go. Omegas need more ways they are better then Alphas is the way to go. I get wanting to not feel cheated out of subscription money is already invested. I am saying allow more features to be added to Omegas then later a bastard version to Alphas. This is a good model that will lead to a richer experience for both.

Back in 2007 I fell in love with the concept that EVE was offering. The thing I said now is still true today. If they added 1st person aspect to this game IE survival game on planet. If they continue to listen to the community and attempt to implement thoughtful changes they will have one the best games of all time.

Some where along the way CCP started listening to the accountants and this is normal in growing companies. Generally go compare this forum to other games as far as forum feedback turned into implementation. look at the WOW boards they have faction imbalance in their PVP servers making game unplayable literally since 2009 and have never addressed it.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#11 - 2017-05-04 22:18:56 UTC
You seem to be under the impression that alphas are supposed to be effective. They aren't. They're supposed to be an opportunity to try the game and learn the mechanics without being scared off by a financial commitment. If veteran players are choosing to use alpha accounts for anything then that's a problem, and if it can be fixed without hindering the new player experience then it should be fixed. And from that point of view battleships, pirate cruisers, etc, are all expensive endgame ships that new players have no ability to use. The only people who would benefit would be veteran players who want to save $15/month and still get to fly the same stuff.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#12 - 2017-05-05 00:19:00 UTC
Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game?
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#13 - 2017-05-05 01:13:12 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game?


are you afraid alpha clones are going to mess with your pretty little space ships you spent so much money on?
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#14 - 2017-05-05 01:23:42 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that alphas are supposed to be effective. They aren't. They're supposed to be an opportunity to try the game and learn the mechanics without being scared off by a financial commitment. If veteran players are choosing to use alpha accounts for anything then that's a problem, and if it can be fixed without hindering the new player experience then it should be fixed. And from that point of view battleships, pirate cruisers, etc, are all expensive endgame ships that new players have no ability to use. The only people who would benefit would be veteran players who want to save $15/month and still get to fly the same stuff.


Off Topic:
What is happening is CCP is trying to monetize EVE more effectively. Their is a market for players to have less then $15.00 but more the $0 per month to spend on a game. EVE is trying to up sale alpha clones to omega's obviously but if you don't have Alpha's with a good gaming experience your attrition rate to the Omega upgrade will be very high. That is CCP's problem in a nutshell. The only thing that is largely apparent is their are a lot of people that are calcified and afraid of change among the EVE player community. I will plan on spending money on EVE again. I a new and returning player since 2007-2015 prove to me(community not you merin) that's not a waste of money because I'm not so sure.

Why not reward players that have subscribed forever with a years of service clothing item and ship skin. The older ones will have automatically be rarer probably more valuable. If you do this in the history of the account you may lure old accounts back into action.

Back to the topic:

I think its pretty clear no version of the Pirate ships are cool. I understand the skill farming aspect maybe instead of skill injection that decays their should be a temporary pilots licenses extension that permits BS/BC.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#15 - 2017-05-05 01:33:46 UTC
hog butter wrote:
Their is a market for players to have less then $15.00 but more the $0 per month to spend on a game.


Not really. $15/month is a trivial cost for most players who can afford the computer/internet/etc to play EVE at all. The actual situation is a pretty binary split between people who are kind of interested in playing EVE but not enough to commit financially to it and people who know they like EVE and are willing to pay. Once you cross that barrier of paying for the game at all I don't think there's a meaningful difference between $10/month and $15/month.

Quote:
EVE is trying to up sale alpha clones to omega's obviously but if you don't have Alpha's with a good gaming experience your attrition rate to the Omega upgrade will be very high.


Giving alphas more options doesn't help this because the people who are legitimately using alpha clones (newbies learning the game, and potential customers checking it out) don't have the skill points or ISK to make use of those options. If you get to the point where you can realistically use omega-level skills/ships/etc then you're no longer in that initial trial period and you should be paying your $15/month. The constant flood of "make alphas better" proposals is not about improving the learning experience for new customers, it's about existing customers trying to find a way to play for free without sacrificing anything, especially with hordes of alt accounts.

Quote:
Why not reward players that have subscribed forever with a years of service clothing item and ship skin. The older ones will have automatically be rarer probably more valuable. If you do this in the history of the account you may lure old accounts back into action.


This is a reasonable suggestion, but it has nothing to do with the topic here.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#16 - 2017-05-05 01:44:08 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:

Not really. $15/month is a trivial cost for most players who can afford the computer/internet/etc to play EVE at all. The actual situation is a pretty binary split between people who are kind of interested in playing EVE but not enough to commit financially to it and people who know they like EVE and are willing to pay. Once you cross that barrier of paying for the game at all I don't think there's a meaningful difference between $10/month and $15/month.


Wow this is pretty bold statement this would be the first thing in the history of commodities in which that would be the case. I suppose you have some bold evidence to back this up? Any market research you want to link to me in the target demographic of 18-45 year old men and don't forget EVE is internationally so you will need to have quite a few links to send over.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

Giving alphas more options doesn't help this because the people who are legitimately using alpha clones (newbies learning the game, and potential customers checking it out) don't have the skill points or ISK to make use of those options. If you get to the point where you can realistically use omega-level skills/ships/etc then you're no longer in that initial trial period and you should be paying your $15/month. The constant flood of "make alphas better" proposals is not about improving the learning experience for new customers, it's about existing customers trying to find a way to play for free without sacrificing anything, especially with hordes of alt accounts.


I don't get this they cannot box you cannot ever multi-window Omega and an Alpha. If you VM I presume your compromising your Omega accounts if CCP finds you. The flooding the market with goods is and old tired argument I have heard but give no credence to.
Eli Apol
Definitely a nullsec alt
#17 - 2017-05-05 01:51:26 UTC
Ewar for all, sure, why not, scrams, webs and neuts are too important for all pvp so sure, just open up damps, ecm, disruptors and paints and make it even.

Haulers - just make the specialised haulers non alpha, easy.

BCs and BS... hmmmm... think what null alliances might do with these in fleets of hundreds... think of how many SP (and potential farming of) you'd be unleashing. MAYBE BCs with cruiser sized weapons could be ok but definitely not easily accessible nados and talos..

No to pirate ships.

but what would I know, I'm just a salvager
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#18 - 2017-05-05 01:56:53 UTC
hog butter wrote:
Wow this is pretty bold statement this would be the first thing in the history of commodities in which that would be the case I suppose you have some bold evidence to back this up? Any market research you want to link to me in the target demographic of 18-45 year old men and don't forget EVE is internationally so you will need to have quite a few links to send over.


Or you could just use some common sense and understand that EVE's cost per hour is incredibly low compared to other hobbies. $15 barely buys you a meal out at a cheap restaurant, a movie ticket with no snacks/drinks, etc, and you get way more hours of entertainment out of it. 18-45 year old men regularly throw much larger amounts of money at having fun, even without getting into the really expensive hobbies. EVE's biggest problem is not that it's an expensive hobby, it's that it's a niche-market game that doesn't compromise its core identity in favor of mass appeal. You either love it or you hate it, and most people hate it.

Quote:
I don't get this they cannot box you cannot ever multi-window Omega and an Alpha. If you VM I presume your compromising your Omega accounts if CCP finds you.


You do understand that the multi-boxing restrictions are trivially easy to get around, and impossible for CCP to detect, right? And that many things which alts are valuable for do not require actively playing at the same time as your main? I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the forum complaints about how alphas need to be more powerful are most often from veteran players, not newbies who feel constrained by the limits of an alpha account.
hog butter
Romex Inc.
#19 - 2017-05-05 02:06:33 UTC  |  Edited by: hog butter
Merin Ryskin wrote:

Or you could just use some common sense and understand that EVE's cost per hour is incredibly low compared to other hobbies. $15 barely buys you a meal out at a cheap restaurant, a movie ticket with no snacks/drinks, etc, and you get way more hours of entertainment out of it. 18-45 year old men regularly throw much larger amounts of money at having fun, even without getting into the really expensive hobbies. EVE's biggest problem is not that it's an expensive hobby, it's that it's a niche-market game that doesn't compromise its core identity in favor of mass appeal. You either love it or you hate it, and most people hate it.


Off Topic again Sad :
These are good arguments they are intuitive but you don't understand consumer behavior. The disconnect is that no one calculates their online game play as a cost per hour. If anything they view the actual hours spent as an additional cost. You will here that many people quite XYZ game because it to over their life. This is my argument about ergonomics and about the retention of new Alpha clones. This argument is especially incorrect when you are talking about disposable income. 18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income the further you slide down the scale of age the less money to spend on EVE their is. So if you have your average age of your gaming population increase you must lower the cost. This is because your players are conditioned for $X/month and they will always compare that experience to X.

Merin Ryskin wrote:

You do understand that the multi-boxing restrictions are trivially easy to get around, and impossible for CCP to detect, right? And that many things which alts are valuable for do not require actively playing at the same time as your main? I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the forum complaints about how alphas need to be more powerful are most often from veteran players, not newbies who feel constrained by the limits of an alpha account.dollar value.


I actually didn't know that their was little enforcement around multi-boxing. I am a veteran account but not a veteran to many aspects of game play. I really could care less about multi-boxing as a player as a matter of fact my entire eve play is based around trading and trucking with a couple accounts. Multi-boxing should be controlled I am sure how maybe it requires an invention VMware detection.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#20 - 2017-05-05 04:19:20 UTC
The idea that EVE is overpriced at $15/month simply does not match reality. The industry standard for MMO subscriptions is $15/month, and that hasn't kept other games from being immensely popular and profitable. The issue with EVE is not that $15/month is too much, it's that it has a much smaller target market and most of the people who love WoW and similar games wouldn't touch EVE even if omega clones were free.

hog butter wrote:
The disconnect is that no one calculates their online game play as a cost per hour. If anything they view the actual hours spent as an additional cost.


{citation needed}

I don't know about you, but I definitely consider cost per hour in deciding if entertainment is worth it, and I certainly don't consider the hours spent having fun to be some kind of additional cost.

Quote:
You will here that many people quite XYZ game because it to over their life.


That has nothing to do with the cost of the game, it's about people who can't find a healthy balance between their hobby and the rest of their life, or even people who become addicted to a game. Crossing the line from fun into obsession has nothing to do with alpha clones or the price of the game.

Quote:
18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income the further you slide down the scale of age the less money to spend on EVE their is.


{citation needed}

A quick search turns up this article suggesting that disposable income peaks around 35-45 and doesn't get down to the level of the early 20s until after retirement age. And this matches the intuitive understanding of the situation, where 18-25 year olds have no family expenses but also have the lowest level jobs. After all, there's a reason why the really expensive hobbies tend to be full of older people who have advanced to high-end jobs and no longer have young kids to take care of.
123Next pageLast page