He’s only a a 2018 player so I will cut him some slack.
the only person to kill me from the forums was aiko…
Thanks. You’re probably right. I’m always mixing up the decades.
FarmVille was the spark that changed the industry as a whole.
If I ever get to see you in something I can gank in my current ship …
… I will prioritize you over some other guy. 
1 Like
Proof that Lucas Kell had a sheltered childhood, and wasn’t raised as Wiking.
No, it was done out of lust for more money.
Competition has existed plentifully since literally ever.
In case you didn’t know, and it’s unlikely you did, there was a video game crash in the 80s for a good reason.
A reason you’re likely going to make up so it fits your nonsense.
There has always been lots of competition.
There were hundreds of thousands of games already available in the early nineties just for the PC …
… not even counting all the other still active platforms.
Hundreds of thousands per market segment.
As usual do you have no actual understanding of what you’re talking about.
Just that narrow view, where everyone’s a victim by default, you apparently manage to push everything into.
He wouldn’t even know.
The problem with trying to appeal to a wider audience is that all the other clever developers are trying to do the same thing, so you end up competing with way more different games than if you focus on a niche, and make a product that stands out.
There’s a limited amount of potential customers in the world, and the game-to-audience ratio has been consistently growing over the years. You can try to appeal to however many people you want, but if your game doesn’t do something exceptionally well, no one’s going to notice it, like any one of the tens of thousands of Steam games that peak at a few dozen players after release, and then drop to nothing.
As usual, Sol is long on aggressive opinion and prejudice, short on facts. The “video game crash” of the 80’s he refers to was console games, since home PCs were just starting to be a thing at that time.
And the “hundreds of thousands of games” early in the 90’s “just for the PC” he’s presumably counting all thouse 50-on-a-disk trash shareware games you could buy for a dollar in discount bins. He’s not even on the right order of magnitude if we’re talking professionally produced games. Just as a reference here’s where the gaming market was in the early 90’s:
Notice something missing in the description of all those games? Could it be the “Requires Windows to run” sticker? Yep… those were primarily DOS games.
At any rate, he somewhat missed the point (as usual, in his eagerness to shut out all contradicting thoughts as wrongheaded and misinformed), that “competition for EVE” does not include “every game everywhere, ever”.
I got interested in EVE around 2005, although it was a few more years before I got the time to play. The reason was because I was tired of a decade of hack-and-slash fantasy MMO’s and had really enjoyed my bouts with Master of Orion and Star Wars: X-Wing series and was looking for something more like that.
And if I recall correctly, there were like, two games available. Two. EvE and Earth-something. So yeah, the market evolves, and things need to change, and funnily enough the guys screaming “Adapt or die! Deal with the consequences!” seem to be the ones most dead-set on trying to turn the clock back 15 years so they can have ‘fun’ again.
2 Likes
I can’t compete with an asshole of the level of Lucas Kell and another misguided one backing him up.
vOv
Edit: Yeah, no. Just because someone doesn’t like being called an asshole doesn’t mean it’s against the rules and deserves to be flagged. Why would anyone, who isn’t an asshole, be bothered by being called an asshole? When you know you’re not an asshole, why do you wish to censor someone who claims you are one? What is there to gain from hiding peoples’ opinions about you, unless these opinions might point people at the truth?
It makes sense to think that those, who do not wish to be called assholes, are the ones who deserve it the most.
This thread is straying far from the original topic. Let’s get back on track: @Destiny_Corrupted has a UBI infection. Discuss.
Just kidding 
. But seriously guys, more EVE player + EVEconomic impacts, less inapplicable RL historical analysis and parallels. (And less 'I h8 u’s, too.)
2 Likes
Let’s give everyone ten million ISK per day so we can watch the world burn.
Assuming they’re not too stupid to use them, that is …
… which might be the case considering otherwise they wouldn’t need them.
@Solstice_Projekt what would be your disposition on the concept if the UBI were much smaller? What level of UBI, if any, do you think would be sensible?
I’ve kind of forgotten the reason why they should be getting any money in the first place.
Because that’s supposed to be helping something?
And who is that supposed to be helping?
Why do they need help in the first place?
What about all of those who don’t need that money?
Why don’t they need that money?
Can you actually answer these questions without all the speculation and empty words?
I can’t actually answer your question as long as I don’t have answers to mine.
As of now I do not see any need for UBI and there is no sense in blindly assuming it would be beneficial.
I’m listening reading.
To be fair, there is no need for it. The question is not one of need but of benefit. Many of the posts above did address these points. If you have counterpoints or feel that the points raised were weak that’s one thing, but if you feel they weren’t raised at all, you could go back and do some re-reading 
Okay, my position: I don’t like helicopter-drops of ISK, resources, or rewards. I believe they lead to passive gameplay, and I’m pretty sure that some players somewhere will find ways to abuse it. Even if it’s only to have cheap throwaway ships that’ll encourage them to simply go out and be a dick so they can “harvest some salt”.
I approve strongly of the notion of giving less-developed, less-wealthy players faster ways to gain resources and recover from losses with less grind. Particularly via methods that don’t have them competing directly against 10-year vets looking to stroke their egos with easy wins over weak targets.
So I approve of the “lets give some boosts to newer/casual/recently dispossessed” players part. I don’t approve of the “let’s just drop ISK on them” part. Good game design, in my opinion, involves giving players a choice of interesting things to do and new challenges to take on, and rewarding them in ways that allow them to progress based on their efforts. If facing risk and loss is a part of the EVE challenge (which it is and should be), then ways for less-developed players to recover from risk and loss should also be built in.
(And please let’s dispense with all the “Yeah but as a 10-year vet I can recover from those losses in 2 hours even on a new char, so there!” bullshazz. The entire point is to address those players who don’t spend hours reading up on “EVE tips and tricks” in order to play.)
MechWarrior Online pays extra bonuses for the first 25 missions successfully completed. StarTrek Online pays bonus rewards for various “first run of the day” type completions. Things like that.
Notions I think would add to the game, rather than introduce an element that leads to passive behaviors:
- A ‘task tree’ similar to the 2015 NPE “Opportunities”. It could be fixed (one run-through), or static design but repeatable with diminishing rewards, or various portions of a random task tree could be generated each week or something. https://www.eveonline.com/article/opportunities-abound-the-new-player-experience
- Random daily tasks available for extra ISK/SP/LP rewards like some events have shown, drawn from a pool.
- Being hired “on retainer” by a corp, which you qualify for by doing some missions for the corp, raising your standing, then getting an offer/accepting a contract to complete X missions per week for the corp for Y daily retainer fee. Higher standings would allow you to both receive more pay for the current contract, or to accept a higher contract for either more missions or riskier ones.
These ideas are basically to ensure players are in the game doing something, as well as being encouraged to branch out and try new things, as well as maybe providing a mechanic or framework to teach them how to do these other things. So rather than free money, it’s “here, play the game, choose your own actions, we’ll show you some goals and some tips, and we’ll reward you well for doing so”.
1 Like
It’s too many words. Whole thing could/should be consolidated into actual points instead of lots of people posting lots of words with varying substance and meaning. It’s far too easy getting lost in all of this. I personally really struggle, and it shows, because there’s just way too much noise among the little signal. Then I just add noise instead of trying to boil things down to actual signals.
People need lots of words to convince others that it’s a good idea …
… which usually means that it isn’t actually a good idea.
Okay, so you say that there’s the idea that people will benefit, but there’s no need.
Without a need …
… why should they be getting something?
Or are there those who would need?
Then why would they need?
Why wouldn’t others need?
There is room to argue for the group of people who would actually benefit from UBI. In real life that would be people who I’ll now put into the bucket called artists. The creative folks, who would thrive if they could start making a living out of their hobby and who would truly benefit from being paid until they can be self-reliant.
While the creative potential in EVE is quite high, there is no need to pay players so they can “pursue their hobby until it pays them the costs of living and then some”. In EVE there’s no need for this, because capsuleers don’t pay rent, starve or freeze to death.
That fact removes a whole other group of people I put into the bucket “the unfortunate”. EVE doesn’t have that. No one’s so unfortunate that they will struggle in this game unless they’re really too stupid to shoot rats. Please note that one is not “unfortunate” for continuously trying to kill people in lowsec and failing. That just means he needs to improve.
These guys don’t benefit from UBI. They’d benefit from working harder. I understand that some people would believe there is room to argue for these people as well, but that’s not the case. They “just want to shoot others in lowsec”, which isn’t a valid argument. They’re not entitled to it. When they run out of money they have to put effort into making money, so they can keep doing what they want: shooting people in lowsec. They’re free to use their credit cards to buy PLEX for ISK, too.
These people wouldn’t benefit from UBI …
… they’d benefit from learning that they suck at it and either need to improve or find something else.
They have no need for UBI in this regard.
Their need is something else: Training and playerskills or acceptance.
There’s the group who doesn’t manage to cut it making ISK. They won’t benefit from UBI, because they already struggle with the simplest form of interaction with the game. Making ISK. They wouldn’t stay, they wouldn’t last, they lack even the basic requirements. No game company wants those unless they’re specifically the target. That’s not EVE, though, because for those people EVE’s way too complex.
I’ll wait for you to bring up groups of people who would actually need this.
The idea of a general benefit is invalid. There’s no benefit without a need.
If there is a benefit, then the need first needs to be identified.
If there is no need, then it’s not a benefit. Then it’s literally just free money for no reason
and every single word around it is just there to distract from the fact that there’s no actual need for it.
An idea requiring lots of words for convincing usually isn’t a good one. Of course, it’s fair to discuss the idea to come up with actual points, so one can work over it again from there, but without the points and actual structure it’s all just clouds of words without substance.
I know you’re not trying to argue for this. That’s not relevant.
What’s relevant is finding the good points, bad points and - most importantly - the actually irrelevant points.
I don’t think you get, it, Sol (and others). Your opinion of UBI is so clouded by bootstrap-pulling propaganda that you’re unable to separate game from reality.
The purpose of UBI in real life is to ensure that certain people don’t starve to death while society stands by and watches, yes. And obviously, we can’t starve to death in EVE Online. But what can happen is that we might not want to play. What UBI would protect against is people sidelining EVE when the game forces them to do bootstrap-pulling, but they just don’t feel like doing it at that time. Because, Sol, this is a game, and sometimes you don’t want to do bootstrap-pulling during your leisure time, even if it’s the “right” thing to do for an EVE player at all times. Sometimes you just want to be entertained without any strings attached.
And so, a player who’s experiencing such feelings will be choosing from either forcing themselves to pull those bootstraps, or close this game and open one in which they’ll actually have fun at that particular moment. A UBI would give that player an opportunity to keep playing EVE instead, and that’s the most optimal outcome for everyone involved, since the game needs active players.
This, by the way, is also the reason why the UBI shouldn’t amount to a trivial sum, if it’s implemented. You want the recipient to be able to afford something exciting, instead of merely able to afford the bare minimum as a launching platform in order to enable them to grind for more.
Was that…a Kojima reference? 
2 Likes
I basically agree with OP. I think getting fun in the game is difficult for new bros, of course some of them are expecting a very easy game and thus lose their ship from not willing to even read the mission the career agent offered them. They don’t focus and then lose ships, and are in a noobship and can’t do a thing. I mean those people should not be able to play the game anyhow, because otherwise Eve loses its sense of merit. No difficulty = no achievement.
But the people who are interested in a lot of things, like going LS, WS, trying various things, those people they should be given the tools to have fun and try things from day 1. Which is not the case ATM.
The issue is that the daily value should be indexed on not raw isk but the average value of a few ships you should be able to lose in the process.
for example, in a (30D) month you should be able to lose 3 ventures, 5 frigates, 3 destroyers and a cruiser, all fit meta0 or T2.
Meaning, mathematically the universal income would increase with the inflation.
Also, the income should be limited to players having an active skill queue and being omega. So If I buy a MTC I have one more revenue. This is, to avoid alpha abuse.
Why a limit of 10M and not 20 ?
Not want to play, because they have no ISK?
You call that “bootstrap-pulling”, whatever that means?
Okay, so we ignore that EVE’s a game and people are supposed to be playing it to make ISK. I understand that the argument here will be that the generic money-making opportunities are too boring for many, but it’s not a valid argument, because you could bring up the same argument of “someone not feeling like it” even if it was fun and engaging content.
99.99% of the people I know tend to work for their ISK …
… and then spend it by doing other stuff.
The solution to the problem of someone not wanting to grind is buying PLEX and selling them for ISK.
How many people do you believe are you actually talking about …
… and why is that amount relevant enough for a fundamental change of the game that affects everyone?
What’s wrong with the solution of buying PLEX?
With the UBI ISK of Black Pedro’s skillfarm every single day I could single handedly destroy the market in Hek even if I didn’t wanted to. I’d just raise the price for everything I need until it’s too expensive, then I buy from the next system. Everyone else will just literally do the same. Supply will not be able to satisfy demand in the long run.
Why would you believe otherwise?
I’ve already done this on a small scale and it is trivial to do it on a bigger scale.
Why would you believe it would not cause massive inflation to give every omega ten million ISK per day?
Are we even talking about ten million ISK per day?
It appears to me that you are trying to accomodate the lazy, ultimately creating self-entitled people.
You just don’t want to call them lazy. You want to call them the group of people who “just don’t want to make the ISK right now”.
You’re not aware of this?
Worse, it will attract lazy people who don’t need to do anything at all yet get to have fun anyway …
… and at some point people will ask for more, not just, but also because they themselves will cause inflation.
In a perfect world (game?) there wouldn’t even be unlimited money. As is, players effectively print cash by performing PvE. Instead, they would get paid by government entities like empire governments/DED, which would get funded via income and market taxes, so that wealth would be constantly redistributed. When their budgets get too low, payouts for PvE activities would become smaller, and vice versa. Only the governments would be able to print more cash (could be decided by CCP, or an algorithm), which would be the source of inflation. Then ISK faucets/sinks would lose all meaning.
That’s the kind of EVE I would’ve liked to have played. A topic for another time, though.
1 Like