EVE Search - Time to put a cap on the subscriber base?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Time to put a cap on the subscriber base?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
YouKilled AnAlt	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:10:00 - [1] Thread after thread, week after week, year after year all about the same thing: the terrible lag people experience throughout eve but in particular in major trade hubs, major ratting systems and major fleet battles. The common egg/chicken argument is: "Cant CCP improve their hardware?" "Well they could but then everyone would just do more until the same situation arose." So an elegant solution: 200k subscribers. Working on US dollars thats 200,000 x $15 = $3,000,000 per month in subscriber payments to CCP. $36m per year. It seems to me that instead of grabbing as many people as possible and just adding to the mire CCP should move the game into a limited entry mode. Each time you lose a subscriber you can accept a new account. No deactivations = no new activations. You can calculate exactly what your income is to your costs pay everyone a salary and work the problems out. If you manage to improve things to the extent that the game becomes 100% playable for your vast subscriber base you can take people in in drafts. Seems to me you are making an awful lot of money right now. Surely to continue to take in new subs when you are FULLY aware of the games current design and implementation problems is both greedy and lacking in morals. Get back to your roots, dump the ferraris and the krystal, remember your vision.
Andra Muse EtE Clan	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:16:00 - [2] Originally by: YouKilled AnAlt Thread after thread, week after week, year after year all about the same thing: the terrible lag people experience throughout eve but in particular in major trade hubs, major ratting systems and major fleet battles. The common egg/chicken argument is: "Cant CCP improve their hardware?" "Well they could but then everyone would just do more until the same situation arose." So an elegant solution: 200k subscribers. Working on US dollars thats 200,000 x $15 = $3,000,000 per month in subscriber payments to CCP. $36m per year. It seems to me that instead of grabbing as many people as possible and just adding to the mire CCP should move the game into a limited entry mode. Each time you lose a subscriber you can accept a new account. No deactivations = no new activations. You can calculate exactly what your income is to your costs pay everyone a salary and work the problems out. If you manage to improve things to the extent that the game becomes 100% playable for your vast subscriber base you can take people in in drafts. Seems to me you are making an awful lot of money right now. Surely to continue to take in new subs when you are FULLY aware of the games current design and implementation problems is both greedy and lacking in morals. Get back to your roots, dump the ferraris and the krystal, remember your vision. because this is the key to a successful business strategy. i feel bad for even replying to this so i recommend people just ignore it. IBTL
Admiral Pelleon Caldari White Shadow Imperium imPure.	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:16:00 - [3] No. ________ Originally by: Tarminic I believe your mother should have re-rolled her birth control.
Ikasu Gallente The Durandal Organization	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:18:00 - [4] Other then bad business this will also kill the dreams of people who want to actually play Eve. Seriously, being rejected from a game because of a subscriber cap is kind of bogus. I got mad enough when Cabals closed beta decided to temp ban all American testers. ------------------------------------------------- Attention Devs, for every isk you send me one member of your family will be returned safely.
Andra Muse EtE Clan	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:19:00 - [5] just don't reply, this isn't even worth the carbon footprint you're generating, not to mention the life your wasting answering. damn another 10 seconds gone.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:19:00 - [6] Originally by: YouKilled AnAlt Seems to me you are making an awful lot of money right now. Surely to continue to take in new subs when you are FULLY aware of the games current design and implementation problems is both greedy and lacking in morals. There are in the process of upgrading their computers to (IIRC) an actual supercomputer. A computer that I believe will be among the most powerful not in government/university hands. So there are investing in the game. And FWIW I play a lot and rarely find lag to be a problem. When I do find lag an issue is exactly when I would expect it to (in Jita or a fleet situation). Mostly seems fine.
Tamia Clant New Dawn Corp New Eden Research	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:20:00 - [7] That's a good idea from a player's point of view, but a terribly bad one from a business' point of view. CCP's current strategy is aggressive marketing, they're trying to get as many new subscribers as possible. They're even getting on the Steam platform. Most likely, the way they see it, there's going to be lag whether there's a 200k limitation or not, and people leaving because of it, and they might as well get as many people subscribed as possible. Besides, lag is only present on a few areas. Try roaming around in high-sec during a Sunday. The hubs will have hundreds of people and horrible lag, but a high amount of systems will only have a few people. The servers can support a lot more people, the problem is that most insist on hanging around in the same locations. Some people look around until they find an area free of lag, other people come to the forums... Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
Taedrin Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.01.28 02:37:00 - [8] <sarcasm> I have a better idea! Let's introduce log-in queues! </sarcasm> Seriously, any strategy which is founded on NOT letting people play is a stupid idea. It's stupid as a business strategy, and it's bad for the game. Seriously, think about it. If CCP decided to cap subscribers, EVE would be come a closed game. The only people who can play it are the ones who are already playing. Once this happens, CCP will get bad PR and will find it hard to get new subscribers to replace the slow, but steady, loss of old subscribers. Or in other words, it would be the beginning of the end with regards to EVE. Also, don't forget that this game already puts off a lot of newer players because of the steep learning curve.
Neon Genesis The Landed Gentry	Posted - 2008.01.28 03:10:00 - [9] This is awful. Why would a company ever do this? The lag is really unacceptable in some places but alliance warfare isn't all there is and eve isn't exactly completely halted. _
duckmonster GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.28 03:17:00 - [10] No more customers 4 u naughty CCP! Excelent Buiness strategy there OP. Kneecap ones own business to save it. What could possibly go wrong? -----------

Road Sweeper	Posted - 2008.01.28 03:26:00 - [11] Edited by: Road Sweeper on 28/01/2008 03:27:38 only way this would work is if they increased the price to a point where the number of people willing to pay was what they wanted....... screw that. edit: and for what it's worth, $36 million (ú18 million in real money) dosnt go far when you allow for hardware, bandwidth, buildings, wages, assets, advertising, etc, etc, etc.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.01.28 05:04:00 - [12] but there are so many places that are still lag free!!!!!
Segge Bolled Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2008.01.28 05:35:00 - [13] I wasted my time reading the OP and all I got was this rise in my blood pressure.
Lord Evangelian Gallente LEAP Corp	Posted - 2008.01.28 06:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Segge Bolled I wasted my time reading the OP and all I got was this rise in my blood pressure. this... I know lets stop all people in the world being born..the world is over populated and polluted and full of crap we don't need. take this pill...it wil make your genitals falls offs.....oh noes --------------------
The Switch Dust Clique	Posted - 2008.01.28 06:58:00 - [15] Undoubtedly my favorite aspect of Eve is that it is a persistent setting, and whatever i do (admittedly far from epic at this point) is part of the overall narrative. But . . . perhaps there are other clusters out there, evolving along radically different axes of cultural and technological progression. The game mechanics do seem pretty robust. Perhaps a Milky Way currently recovering from an epochal war with a far more virulent strain of drones; something like "Eve: The Dark Age" where salvage might be the main economy. The point is that maybe it's time to open a new server while still retaining the idea of a unique and persistent narrative. Thus the real issue is getting another Jita or four and giving more 'empire' space and places for new characters to start out, current canon or not. Expanding the number of systems further out into 0.0 is necessary by virtue of the current story line, but this in a way has and will continue to suffer from 'diminishing returns' as a disproportionately small number of pilots will be able to use the space while still increasing the load on a finite number of existing civilized trade hubs. And finally, perhaps the idea of 'isk sinks' could be further extended to include 'bandwidth sinks'. Extra dimensions of server real-estate within the current locales (station space anyone? revolutionary breakthroughs in jump tech?) that could be distributed to less used portions of the CCP super-computer while most-importantly still providing immediate transitions to the high volume areas.
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2008.01.28 07:04:00 - [16] Originally by: Lord Evangelian Originally by: Segge Bolled I wasted my time reading the OP and all I got was this rise in my blood pressure. this... I know lets stop all people in the world being born..the world is over populated and polluted and full of crap we don't need. take this pill...it wil make your genitals falls offs.....oh noes Can i ask you something, how come your sig aint been nerfed yet, its been over the width restriction for god knows how long and its seriously starting to bug me... Sorry Welcome to EvE
Ishan Mons Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.28 07:14:00 - [17] OP must be french cause the only people who use that business strategy are stuck up french waiters with too much attitude to sell you anything ------------------------ BOOST PATCH! BOOST PATCH! BOOST PATCH! BOOST PATCH!
Completely UnAmused	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:16:00 - [18] hahahaha Yeah..im sure CCP is going to put a cap on how much isk...i mean money they make off of their product. Sure CCP needs to offer more incentive for people to spread out beyond empire but they can't really force players to go out there. Better minerals are out in lowsec,apparently the gas clouds as well. One thing they need to do is increase the ratting aspect of lowsec. Not that I really care but I did spend a year in lowsec but ended up just doing L4s in empire since it was far better iskwise. Sure ccp is going to prefer to be slightly successful as opposed to pushing for more.
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:20:00 - [19] I never lag. I find the trick is to avoid major fleet battles, avoid major ratting systems, and avoid major trade hubs. Blobfare sucks anyway.
Benedic The Aftermath	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:23:00 - [20] There's already plenty of natural subscriber turnover. If they wanted to limit the number of people on the cluster they could start with getting rid of the 3-4k farmers that are online at any one time.

Richard Phallus	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:26:00 - [21] The State Commission for Provision of Large Scale Space Combat and Economic Computational Simulation, SCPLSSCECS for short shall at once cap its citizen service level comrade! --
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:26:00 - [22] Edited by: Kerfira on 28/01/2008 08:31:46 The OP fails horribly in 2 arguments! 1. 36m $ is NOT a large amount of money for a MMORPG game company! 2. The total amount of people is not creating lag, stupid game design rewarding blobbing (not just in fleet combat) is. There are several types of blobbing. Fleet blobbing. Solvable! Implement more anti-blob weapons (like the titan DD) Mission system blobbing. Solvable! Remove quality level and system sec.level from reward calculation (replace the last with low-sec and 0.0 modifier). Trade system blobbing. Possibly not solvable. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:28:00 - [23] One idea to solve fleet blobbing I've had is this: BS (maybe cruiser) sized module. Activates on ship death or pilot activation. Destroys ship on activation. If less than 100 ships on grid, absolutely no effect apart from destruction of ship. If more than 100 ships on grid, the fun starts (damage and range going up with number of ships): 100-150 ships: 20-50km range, 500-3000 damage. 150-200 ships: 50-100km range, 3000-15000 damage. 250-300 ships: 100-150km range, 15000-60000 damage. 300+ ships: 150km range, WTFPWN damage. (ship numbers are probably too high, since even 200 ships lag the server to hell, but that could easily be adjusted) A module like this WOULD mean that eventually people wouldn't bring blobs to battle, simply because it'd be too costly/risky to do so. Note that any idea along these lines CAN'T be directed against only enemy ships, since there is no easy (i.e. doable by the server) way to determine which ships are hostile. It HAS to target all ships. While we probably all agree that it would be best if EVE COULD handle the large fleet battles, the sad truth is that it can't, and is unlikely to. If the server can handle 200, people will bring 300 etc. CCP should realise that fact, accept it, and work from there. Its no good working from the assumption that the server can handle these fights when it so obviously can't. Realise what can and can't be done, and do the things that can! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Ponderous Thunderstroke Republic War Machine Industries	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:29:00 - [24] Why cap subscribers to satisfy the extreme minority of A) Jita huggers or B) Fleet-fight fiends that are the main crybabies when it comes to the "OMFGBBQLAG" deal? Count me out. I live in a nice quiet corner of the galaxy where lag is nonexistant and local stays low and/or empty. If you can't figure out how to find your own quiet corner, so sorry, you are only average player. Please try again. -- "PT, you are a complete and total jerk." Yes. Yes I am.
smenkhare Esoteric Industries	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:34:00 - [25] Originally by: YouKilled AnAlt It seems to me that instead of grabbing as many people as possible and just adding to the mire CCP should move the game into a limited entry mode. Each time you lose a subscriber you can accept a new account. No deactivations = no new activations. You can calculate exactly what your income is to your costs pay everyone a salary and work the problems out. If you manage to improve things to the extent that the game becomes 100% playable for your vast subscriber base you can take people in in drafts. 100% playable until they get sued. Pretty sure what you're suggesting is illegal.
Saint Apathy Gallente Joint Operations	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:44:00 - [26] Originally by: smenkhare 100% playable until they get sued. Pretty sure what you're suggesting is illegal. What makes you think it is illegal? It's not like they have to let people play. It's just in their best interest. Incidentally, OP, try to think your way through posts before making them. The idea was pretty stupid, and the evidence you used was that people on the forums are saying there is a problem. You never get real information from what people are whining about on the forums. Never. Don't even think about it. Originally by: actionjaxun What kind of "Pirate" are you? you just show up and knock out my warp drive, and then start shooting me for no reason.
Malken Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:49:00 - [27] as ppl said, "no more customers" is idiocy. however opening up a second server would be good and to cap the current one at 30k ppl or even 20k ppl at the same time online would be excellent atleast until the computer and network technology starts catching up.
Xindi Kraid Caldari	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:54:00 - [28] Edited by: Xindi Kraid on 28/01/2008 08:55:13 Second server? Would you be talking about Serenity which only has 4,000 players? --Bird of Prey: Forum God 1. War 2. 3. Profit
Malken Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:56:00 - [29] Originally by: Xindi Kraid Second server? Would you be talking about Serenity? no im not talking of the chinese server. e second server that we can access from anywhere without chinese goverment intrusion.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.01.28 08:57:00 - [30] Edited by: MotherMoon on 28/01/2008 08:57:01 Originally by: Xindi Kraid Edited by: Xindi Kraid on 28/01/2008 08:55:13 Second server? Would you be talking about Serenity which only has 4,000 players? maybe?



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.