I haven’t played BDO, because I haven’t really heard that much great about it … F2P doesn’t always mean ‘worth playing’. However, if you think EVE isn’t P2W with it’s ‘pay for access to 3/4 of the game features’, with Plex for ISK, with skill injecting your way into any ship you like… then once again you’re not really all that in touch with reality. That was all in place long before Alphas came along.
You also make the mistake, that many of the other ‘subs only, stay pure with subs!’ types do… in that you assume that anyone who pays a sub loves the game, and anyone who argues that a different approach might be worthwhile is obviously a hater who is just looking to ruin the game.
Been here 12 years. Still here. Still looking for ways to improve the game… not just take it back to the model that already failed 6 years ago.
So because I have Omega status and over 175 million SP I’ll always beat you (or some other player with less SP or an Alpha). You might as well quit and just give me your stuff.
No, really. Just contract it to me at Jita 4-4 I’ll put it to good use.
You mean back when the PCU was around 45,000? That failure? I’ll take that any day of the week.
if i dont plex then idont play because its no longer as challenging. I dont plex because i cant afford it. i plex because i enjoy the challenge of it. But when the challenge becomes too high then its not longer fun and just feels like a grind.
The problem with your post is that you assume people who PLEX will not get a subscription. I used to PLEX my account, but then I switched back to a subscription.
Everyone who has a vested interest in something always use the “think about the poor ‘X’, they’ll suffer if something isn’t done.” It is a load of crap by and large in that it is really self-serving nonsense. Think of the players who PLEX (players that are often ISK rich)! Think of the new players! Think of [insert group] so please enact my special pleading.
Pandering to those who don’t care about the game is pretty much the dumbest ■■■■ a company can do. All those people who play because they’re being baited will never care enough about the game to care about keeping it alive.
If they go that route the game’s just going to die, outcry or not.
The “Save the Children” Fallacy (also, Humanitarian Crisis): A cruel and cynical contemporary media-driven fallacy of pathos, an instance of the fallacious Appeal to Pity, attracting public support for intervention in somebody else’s crisis in a distant country by repeatedly showing in gross detail the extreme (real) suffering of the innocent, defenseless little children (occasionally extended even to their pets!) on “our” side, conveniently ignoring the reality that innocent children on all sides usually suffer the most in any war, conflict, famine or crisis.
Recent (2017) examples include the so-called “Rohingya” in Myanmar/Burma (ignoring multiple other ethnicities suffering ongoing hunger and conflict in that impoverished country), children in rebel-held areas of Syria (areas held by our rebels, not by the Syrian government or by Islamic State rebels), and the children of Mediterranean boat-people (light complected children from the Mideast, Afghanistan and North Africa, but not darker, African-complected children from sub-Saharan countries, children who are evidently deemed by the media to be far less worthy of pity).
Scholar Glen Greenwald points out that a cynical key part of this tactic is hiding the child and adult victims of one’s own violence while “milking” the tragic, blood-soaked images of children killed by the “other side” for every tear they can generate as a causus belli [a puffed-up excuse for war, conflict or American/Western intervention].
Prove it or STFU.
Seriously this nonsense of yours is getting on the nerves . You know nothing and you affirm such stupidity, what’s more you are proud of it …
I have a vested interest in the game being fun. Everybody (playing the game) has. So according to your own words, everybody is always using the “think about the poor X”. That’s absurd, so that’s a proof you are saying ■■■■■■■■ again.
What’s more they can use this and not have a vested interest. “think of the poor children in Africa who can’t afford to eat and finish your plate”.
It isn’t about margins however. Humans aren’t rational, meaning that rational decision making is not a prime driver. People are perfectly willing to go banana without regard for margins, sp farming including.
This is one of those classic theory vs reality cases in the social psychology of economic behaviour.
Even running a loss with sp farming isn’t a hurdle for people, as they rationalise just about anything, including perceived savings cost/time.
The “think of the children” comment is an all-purpose attack or defense (argumentum ad misericordiam). At can be applied to almost any opinion about almost any problem. An opponent cam claim it’s being used whenever someone comments on a topic that affects other people as well as themselves.
Look at what they’re doing (i.e. argumentum ad hominem), not at what they’re saying.
BTW - direct misuse of argumentum ad misericordiam is very common. But so is falsely claiming an opponent is doing it. Some people think that kind of technique (e.g. chaining fallacies) is clever /sigh.
Eve is a bit tricky with plex, since plex price actually correlates with playerbase and if you decide to take a break / pause or even quit eve, the chances of returning are very low. Therefore even the players who plex their accounts do matter quite a lot since they bring active player numbers. The potential buyers of plex goes down if the playerbase starts to decrease. Therefore plex price does affect the number of total players in eve in quite a big scale.
Losing a single player plex user or not, he will probably have friends and the one who quit eve will eventually pull out even more players as they often are social and will get other players to accompany them in other games. Eve relies on social connections to keep players but the coin has two sides - it works both ways - it may keep players active but also it may get social people dragged into other games.
You have to remember volume of plex is also manipulated by buying their own orders therefore only ccp has the real statistics of plex usage. The moment of intervention should be relatively low in order to keep real money flowing since the multiplier effect will strike with a delay and once you hit the multiplier effect it is already too late to get people come back.
More active players equals more potential plex buyers. If less players buy plex, price goes up etc the basic law of demand and supply applies. Current plex price has nothing to do with this law since its mostly market manipulation and therefore it isn’t following the law. The volume of plex has usually been so big that it has kept wealthy players from rigging plex price significantly but it seems that there is now enough wealthy players combined together that they are able to do it effectively. This is visible from the price trend of plex - just in 2 weeks price went from 3.7m to 4+m.
This is not “theory” per se.
This is “minmaxing” by its definition : you assume your opponent do the best Choice for them (assuming you are in direct competition).
In opposition to what most people here express, “minmaxing” is not simply “optimization”. It is an algorithm that explores the game choices, every time your opponent make the choice that reduces your gain the most, and every time you make the choice that increase your gain. Formally, the gain is evaluated when you reach a criterion ( eg depth) which makes the current game state a leaf, and for nodes that do not meet this criterion, the gain is the minimum of their children gain if it’s an opponent choice and the maximum if it’s your choice. The evaluation of the root is thus your maximum gain generation.
So now it became usual to assume other people make the choice that would increase their gain, that is the choice that would reduce yours in a null-sum game. People who don’t do that are more likely to waste their initial investment and not be able to play after a while, so by “natural selection” only people who use minmax strategy will become opponents on the long-term. So even if people make mistakes, assuming they don’t is the only way to be sure you have a minimum gain on the long-term.
What are you even talking about? EVE is P2W, that is clear. That’s got nothing to do with your status, SP, or whether you can beat me or not. Nor did anything in my post complain about EVE being P2W, it’s simply a fact.
Look, you guys with the sub fixation have real issues. Here’s some info for you: old games lose population. You can’t go back to the game pop of 6 years ago. The game loses pop mostly because the devs fail to keep it updated and interesting. They also lose pop because the market moves on and people alter their spending/consuming patterns.
The game population fell, hard, for YEARS before Alphas came along. Alphas have nothing to do with declining pop numbers in EVE. They are part of the solution, or at least a symptom, not the problem.
You guys need to stop flailing and wailing, pulling out all these weird responses trying to justify that subs are the only possible model for EVE. Been there, done that, the numbers fell, the game has been mismanaged because of it, we already went F2P, it’s here to stay.
ADJUST TO THE CURRENT SITUATION. Learn to make it work. Stop trying to deny reality and turn back the clock. Yeah, things were great ‘back in the day’, I’m sure… but those days are gone.
No i don’t think you understand how it works with eve.
The isk you get with plex comes from another player who has put the work in to grind it. It’s not a faucet. Modules you buy off the market were grinded for by other players. The sp you get from large skill injectors was trained over time by other players. You don’t goto the pay2win store and create items/isk from nothing.
That was until daily sp injectors. That is.
Anyone who pays for the game thinks it’s worth the money. Those that don’t, don’t.
You are championing a historically short-termist method of profit generating. Where as Eve’s lasted a lot longer than the vast majority of it’s competitors with a subscription model. It’s not a fixation, that’s just how it tends to go. Free2play games are just not long lived.
Eve’s loss of player activity was far more likely to do with gameplay changes than pay model.
No. Just because you can pay more doesn’t mean you’ll also win. Your notion of EVE being Pay To Win falls short at the idea that includes a win.
In some games, mostly PvE-oriented games, can some content only be accessed through paying extra. These items then also end up being account-bound just to keep these exclusive and so that one cannot sell them to others or just give them away freely.
EVE has so far stayed clear from Pay To Win. You can pay extra, but any items like for instance the Abyss items can be traded and owned by anyone. You don’t even have to pay for it and you can just loot it out of other players’ wrecks.
The problem most players then have with Pay To Win is then not that those who have more money get to spend more, but that it has content exclusive to some but not all customers. Most kids with little money then don’t have a problem with other kids owning more money. They’re happy to work extra to get at it. What causes a problem is that when someone with little money but the will to work for it still cannot get access to better content. This has so far not been the case in EVE.
It’s in fact possible to start as an Alpha, become an Omega and not pay a single penny while having full access to all content and with other players paying you for it. It’s not easy, but if you can pull it off then you certainly have a big win.
The current situation is to make a game. Squeeze as much money out of it as possible as quickly as possible. Then abandon the game and make the next flavour of the month.
