Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 19:39:30 -
[1] - Quote
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. Three 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 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 or 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
Empty You
49
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:06:12 -
[2] - Quote
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
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
12
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:09:27 -
[3] - Quote
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. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:25:15 -
[4] - Quote
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
3910
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:37:42 -
[5] - Quote
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 Black Marker
1352
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:40:29 -
[6] - Quote
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.
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
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
12
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:46:35 -
[7] - Quote
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 Black Marker
1352
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 20:51:33 -
[8] - Quote
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
1514
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:00:30 -
[9] - Quote
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.
- 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.
- I personally agree and think this should be addressed somehow.
- 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.
- 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. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 21:56:56 -
[10] - Quote
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...
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
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.04 22:18:56 -
[11] - Quote
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
1160
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 00:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game? |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:13:12 -
[13] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Do you feel you're not currently getting your $0/month from the game?
are you afraid alpha is going to mess pretty little space ships you spent so much money on? |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:23:42 -
[14] - Quote
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.
This appears not to be the case they are 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 an plan on spending money on EVE again. I a new and returning player since 2007-2015 prove to me 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. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:33:46 -
[15] - Quote
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. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:44:08 -
[16] - Quote
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
639
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:51:26 -
[17] - Quote
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
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 01:56:53 -
[18] - Quote
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. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 02:06:33 -
[19] - Quote
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 : 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 dollar value. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 04:19:20 -
[20] - Quote
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. |
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
47697
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 04:27:47 -
[21] - Quote
Subscribe and get access to everything.
Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing. |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 05:15:46 -
[22] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote: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.
citation needed is hilarious statement when its pretty obvious embellishment.
I overstated my point not EVERYONE I just meant most people. I see this catching on in reviews but that doesn't really mean much due to the fact games once a played is then invested in and no longer is treated as commodity by the consumer. This is manifest itself in ones fervor to protect the game from perceived threats. The problem is a new player that is going to survey what new game to play will treat the subscription as a commodity. Additionally many players have to meet a certain schedule to be competitive in social aspects of the game. This is a demand on ones time and with out family and friends that are understanding this may weigh heavy on your real life obligations. I feel like everyone must know this by now.
Merin Ryskin wrote:hog butter wrote: You will here that many people quite XYZ game because it to over their life.
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.
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. {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.
Yes maybe you have the self control to balance your life but to ignore the fact that people can and do get addicted is pretty terrible logic and it is what is called a hidden cost. Just because your a functional drug user doesn't mean drugs aren't addictive. It just means your a master of your high and might I add good for you.
I think you searched this article quickly but didn't read very thoroughly . The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets.
Citations are for those who are insecure in their arguments. Since I really am a nice guy here you go.
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html
The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute. Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 05:39:35 -
[23] - Quote
Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about with 90% of this, but it has nothing to do with alpha clones or subscription costs. MMO addiction is a sad thing, but most players are not in that situation.
Quote: The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets.
What's your point? Discretionary income is discretionary income, and your original claim was that younger people have more discretionary income. You don't suddenly have less of it in total just because you decide to allocate it to something other than a video game.
And of course talking about things like buying houses only highlights my point about EVE being a trivial cost. Compared to the cost of a $300,000 house, $20,000 car, etc, $15/month is so tiny it doesn't even matter in budget calculations. If you're in a position where you're buying houses as an investment then you're going to give that $15/month about as much concern as whether or not you can afford to put three toppings on your pizza instead of two. That is, you're going to buy the cheap thing based on whether or not you want it, without paying attention to the cost.
Quote:http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html
This doesn't say what you seem to think it does. In fact, it explicitly refutes the idea that MMOs are dominated by younger players and argues that they have a diverse market with lots of older players. And it has nothing to do with your disposable income claim that I asked for sources for.
Quote:The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute.
WTF? Are you completely incapable of maintaining a consistent argument without constantly moving the goalposts? Your original claim was that "18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income", not that the average age is around that range. In fact, there's a very obvious explanation here: $15 a month is cheap regardless of age, but younger players tend to have more time available. Both the 19 year old college student and the 30 year old with a successful career have more than enough discretionary income available to play an MMO, but the 30 year old is more likely to have kids or similar time commitments that make playing an MMO less appealing regardless of the subscription price.
Quote:Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic.
No, it's an entirely reasonable idea for many demographics. The simple fact is that, for purchases that are sufficiently cheap, we don't even look at the price tag. If you're making $100k/year as a single adult you normally don't bother looking at the prices on the menu when you go out for dinner. Unless something is vastly out of proportion to the rest of the menu you're just going to order whatever you feel like eating at the moment, and you're not going to care at all about that $1-2 difference in price between the various options.
A similar principle applies to EVE. If you've got enough money to pay for a nice computer, fast internet, etc, to be able to play EVE at all you're probably in a position where $15/month is a very small percentage of your discretionary income and a small cost relative to your other entertainment purchases. Whether EVE costs $10/month or $15/month is going to be much less important to you than whether or not you're interested in playing EVE at all. |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 05:46:11 -
[24] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Subscribe and get access to everything.
Don't subscribe. Don't complain about something for nothing.
Ok? I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 05:51:41 -
[25] - Quote
hog butter wrote:I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.
EVE has grown and thrived just fine with a $15/month subscription price and no free option once your trial ended, as have plenty of other games with $15/month subscription prices. The primary barrier to entry for new players is the fact that EVE is unappologetically a niche-market game that does not compromise its core identity for mass appeal. No matter what subscription price EVE has it will always have fewer potential customers than a game like WoW.
And, I've said it before but I'll say it again: I think it's very revealing that most of the "buff alpha accounts" proposals are coming from veterans, not new customers trying to get into the game. The primary driving force behind those proposals is very clearly "let me play for free forever without sacrificing anything", preferably with a horde of alt accounts. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
336
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 05:54:59 -
[26] - Quote
hog butter wrote:
Ok? I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.
Her/His attitude is just fine, not long ago there was a nullsec entity that kept highsec mercs and their allies mostly at bay for quite a spell......using yep you guessed it Alpha accounts.
Now imagine their Hurricane fleet doctrines used in that way? lunacy. |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 06:19:38 -
[27] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Honestly, I have no idea what you're going on about with 90% of this, but it has nothing to do with alpha clones or subscription costs. MMO addiction is a sad thing, but most players are not in that situation. Quote: The article highlights the fact that most older people are buying durable goods and real estate with their so called discretionary income. This is called investing as you get older you are more likely to stop playing MMO's and start buying houses and other assets. What's your point? Discretionary income is discretionary income, and your original claim was that younger people have more discretionary income. You don't suddenly have less of it in total just because you decide to allocate it to something other than a video game. And of course talking about things like buying houses only highlights my point about EVE being a trivial cost. Compared to the cost of a $300,000 house, $20,000 car, etc, $15/month is so tiny it doesn't even matter in budget calculations. If you're in a position where you're buying houses as an investment then you're going to give that $15/month about as much concern as whether or not you can afford to put three toppings on your pizza instead of two. That is, you're going to buy the cheap thing based on whether or not you want it, without paying attention to the cost. Quote:http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/gateway_demographics.html This doesn't say what you seem to think it does. In fact, it explicitly refutes the idea that MMOs are dominated by younger players and argues that they have a diverse market with lots of older players. And it has nothing to do with your disposable income claim that I asked for sources for. Quote:The average MMO player is 26 so 18-25 is low but buy 1 year not 30. This means the average new player is going to be 26 and that means your argument in the aforementioned discretionary spending article is rendered mute. WTF? Are you completely incapable of maintaining a consistent argument without constantly moving the goalposts? Your original claim was that "18-25 year old males have the highest disposable income", not that the average age is around that range. In fact, there's a very obvious explanation here: $15 a month is cheap regardless of age, but younger players tend to have more time available. Both the 19 year old college student and the 30 year old with a successful career have more than enough discretionary income available to play an MMO, but the 30 year old is more likely to have kids or similar time commitments that make playing an MMO less appealing regardless of the subscription price. Quote:Not to mention your changing the original argument which was you saying it was pretty much binary spending which I might emphasis is ridiculous idea for any demographic. No, it's an entirely reasonable idea for many demographics. The simple fact is that, for purchases that are sufficiently cheap, we don't even look at the price tag. If you're making $100k/year as a single adult you normally don't bother looking at the prices on the menu when you go out for dinner. Unless something is vastly out of proportion to the rest of the menu you're just going to order whatever you feel like eating at the moment, and you're not going to care at all about that $1-2 difference in price between the various options. A similar principle applies to EVE. If you've got enough money to pay for a nice computer, fast internet, etc, to be able to play EVE at all you're probably in a position where $15/month is a very small percentage of your discretionary income and a small cost relative to your other entertainment purchases. Whether EVE costs $10/month or $15/month is going to be much less important to you than whether or not you're interested in playing EVE at all.
Due the fact I can only quote 5 times let me break this down to you as succinct as possible.
This is all related 18-24 has to do with the highest disposable income this is a function of the percentage spent of net income so you linking me something about discretionary income is cute but has nothing to do with what I said. Here is a link to a youtube that explains the two: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s I am not sure why you said and I quoted something I didn't say so....
Your entire rest of your argument has to do with opportunity costs. Opportunity costs in short is the cost of NOT doing something. Gaming has many costs associated with it and opportunity costs are high and this includes time which is the major hidden cost as outlined twice before. Of course older people can pay 15/month but they have more demands on their time and less time in general (going to die soon). This why they will not try a new MMO even if they have the money and interest. The that market research firm was saying that 26 is an rise that was larger that anticipated this has no bearing on any argument not sure why you brought it up. The 30 year comment refer back to the article you posted like I said read it thoroughly. The idea that people with certain incomes don't look at prices or only notice ones that are a certain standard deviation from normal is something that happens but would be filled as anecdotal evidence if you showed this to market research companies. Ultra rich people have accountants and personal shoppers and everyone else has a budget and if you saying that you don't have someone looking at spending for you means little.
I think your smart and have a bunch of energy don't take this the wrong way but their are a bunch of great books on https://librivox.org/ some of them explain micro economics and consumer behavior. You tube has great pod casters that break this sort of stuff but the best resources are financial times. I welcome your discourse however I have to go play EVE before I get sleepy. |
hog butter
Romex Inc. Dustm3n
8
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 06:35:34 -
[28] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:hog butter wrote:
Ok? I really don't care about this argument because whatever you say I will play. If you care about the game you have invested so much time/money into you may want to reconsider an attitude that will drive off new blood.
Her/His attitude is just fine, not long ago there was a nullsec entity that kept highsec mercs and their allies mostly at bay for quite a spell......using yep you guessed it Alpha accounts. Now imagine their Hurricane fleet doctrines used in that way? lunacy.
So because their is abuse throw the baby out with the bath water or in your estimation their is no baby?
Let me also say I don't care about abusing ALPHA ban multiple instances of the game running from a single I.P. I don't care. I don't abuse the game I white Knight for new players because all you jaded salty care-bears hate their guts because they didn't have it as bad as you. Not you guys of course just every time I say anything other then draw and quarter Alpha clones. I even suggest ideas that give Omegas more advantages they fall on largely deaf ears. |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
1355
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 06:40:42 -
[29] - Quote
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 $15/month. Not everyone lives in a first world country. 15$ a month can be a lot of money to certain demographics.
hog butter wrote: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? People that don't pay have no rights to any expectations. It's that simple. Developing and running the game costs money and CCP is a for-profit company, not a charity. The absolutely last thing we want and need is the infestation of the common "free to play" crowd. Free to play games are more often than not littered with artificial time gates and paywalls and hide their enormous costs behind microtransactions.
There's a small subset of players that never buy anything in those games, but they usually burn out fast and move on to the next "free to play" game, where the cycle repeats. Then there's the subset of players who safe their money for quite a while to then waste it on said game for "that one boost" that's going to help them so much. Not. And then you have the kind of player that's buying microtransaction after microtransaction and is effectively paying up to hundreds of Euros each month for their pathetic money-milking game.
The developers of Free to Play games don't care about the health of their game. All they're concerned with is pumping out more micro-transactions to lure the dumb with and milk them just a little more, again and again, until they finished their next "free to play" game to start the cycle anew.
EVE isn't a free-to-play game, it's a subscription-based game. CCP need only concern themselves with the players paying a subscription, not the ones that want to enjoy the game without paying for it. If they make any balance changes to alphas, then those have only to happen to avoid abuse by omega players, not to give the dumb, entitled free-to-play crowd more stuff.
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.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
380
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 06:48:26 -
[30] - Quote
hog butter wrote:This is all related 18-24 has to do with the highest disposable income this is a function of the percentage spent of net income so you linking me something about discretionary income is cute but has nothing to do with what I said. Here is a link to a youtube that explains the two: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s I am not sure why you said and I quoted something I didn't say so....
WTF are you going on about? The article I gave you shows the actual money available, not whatever weird percentage of net income you're talking about. The indisputable fact here is that 18-24 year olds have the lowest disposable income, with the peak disposable income happening in the 40-50 year old range and disposable income not declining to the level of the 18-24 year olds until after retirement age.
Quote:Your entire rest of your argument has to do with opportunity costs. Opportunity costs in short is the cost of NOT doing something.
Yes, and those opportunity costs are the primary factor here. $15/month is a very small price to pay if you actually enjoy EVE. The time commitment, however, is not. Most of the people who won't pay $15/month for EVE wouldn't play it if it cost $1/month.
Quote:Of course older people can pay 15/month but they have more demands on their time and less time in general (going to die soon).
Now you get it! Not having time is a huge issue! But it's an issue that has nothing to do with the subscription price. Lowering subscription prices or giving more power to alpha accounts does not magically give people more hours to play EVE.
Quote:Ultra rich people have accountants and personal shoppers and everyone else has a budget and if you saying that you don't have someone looking at spending for you means little.
Oh FFS, yes, people have a budget, but you keep missing the point. When an item takes up an incredibly small percentage of your budget small differences in its price are less important than whether you want to buy it at all. If you're at a restaurant the difference between a $10 meal and an $11 meal is, assuming you have a decent income, trivial compared to the question of whether you want the chicken or the fish. You're going to buy the meal you want to eat at that moment, and not waste time worrying about the small difference in price.
And yes, EVE is that kind of small purchase. For example, all of my other hobbies are way more expensive than EVE. Airplane rentals cost $75/hour, which puts the $15 cost of my EVE account at about the same price as doing the pre-flight checks and taxiing out to the runway. Miniatures games (40k, X-Wing) cost $15-50 for a single model kit, up to $1-200 or more. New camera lenses cost $2-300 or more. Those are major purchases that dominate my budget considerations. Keeping my EVE account is just a minor rounding error in comparison. If I want to play it I keep it active, if I'm not interested anymore I cancel the subscription. Dropping the price from $15 to $10 would make absolutely no difference in that decision.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |