Kirtis
-
Posts
25 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kirtis
-
-
16 hours ago, blazemonger said:
If 5% of a 30.000 player alliance makes the move they will instantly have 1500 organized members in game.
I know of at least two big alliances with preparation ongoing to establish a presence in DU. I think you underestimate the organizational strength of some of these alliances.
I won't argue that group of organized people can make a difference. More than that - I already wrote that even one skilled leader who has experience of building an organisation can be very successful in a new environment as he already knows what usually works in gamer communities and what does not. And if one skilled leader (or a group of leaders) leaves one game and forms an alliance in a new game - there is a big chance that he'll succeed. And if he'll use the same tag as in a previous game, it can be seen as a transfer of alliance. But if you'll check the rosters you'll see that these are two different organizations that have only the tag and few people in common.
All I doubt about is moving Alliance as a unit to a different game. Those alliances, that you mention are usually quite diverse communities of people who often do not communicate and don't even know each other directly. They are actually a union of great number of way smaller groups that have some agreements (and often disagreements) on their leadership (diplomatic officer) level. They are not an empires united by loyalty to one leader or even a group of leaders. They just have some common goals for the time being regarding the territory in a taken game or some other things regarding the game they are playing. But once you'll tell these people event to move to a different location within the game or to do something that they did not plan to do when they joined an alliance there is big chance that they'll tell you to put your orders where sun does not shine
And that's the reason I don't believe in transfer of alliance from one game to another.
And discussions about "big alliances with preparation ongoing to establish a presence in DU" are pointless right now because no one can tell when there'll even be a chance for these alliances to try an attempt of "establishing presence in DU". It might be that these alliances won't exist even in EvE by the time DU will be released
there might be changes in EvE that will be so good that people won't be even interesting in moving somewhere else at that time. And a whole bunch of reasons why even me and you (who are interested in DU) won't actually play it eventually - with all honesty we know almost nothing about the game yet. All we have is a raw idea which sounds good and atractive for the time being but noone knows yet when it will be implemented and how good the implementation will look in practice.
-
On 2/4/2018 at 12:29 PM, blazemonger said:
In theory the mechanic Dual universe has in development looks better suited with better overall performance but there will always be trade offs and we will have to wait and see how these pan out.
DU will have a long way to go before it can claim to be competing with EVE in sheer player numbers and frankly, while there are similarities between the two, these are very different games. I very much enjoy the fleet roams we have several times a week in EVE, it's a couple of hours of fun, banter and hectic action with often surprising tactical choices being made. As it stands I do not see any such events happen in DU for any number of reasons.
While both are open world sandbox style games, EVE does have a developed and strong universe, political system, commerce and Industry. DU has none of these yet and it will take a good bit of time for the development of these. Frankly, I do not take the existing orgs too serious and it's quite obvious many involved really have no idea what they are doing or getting into. The moment some of the bigger alliances in EVE move into DU there will be a number of conflicts between those who think they understand the game and those who bring structure, organisation and leadership. I know some of the bigger EVE alliances will move in to the DU universe once it becomes an actual working game. They will come in force and establish themselves quickly.
Moving group of players from one project to another isn't as easy as it sounds. Even if an alliance is strong and well organised in one game there is no guarantee that it will be possible to move people to another project. Why? Because there will always be those who'll tell that they don't like something in a new project or they like something more in the old one. I have seen so called "multi-game communities" that claim having organisation on several different projects simultaneously... but all I have seen were different groups of players on different projects, just having some contacts and "old friends" visiting each other from time to time. But I don't believe in moving multi-thousand Alliance from one game to another - usually those big alliances have quite a problem when they need to move from one location to another within the same game - that's where drama starts and alliances split into fractions and peaces. And you tell me about big alliance coming from established game where players spent years, got used to it into a new project which is ambitious in goals but did not reach even official release? You are either not serious or you are overly optimistic about these ideas - reality might disappoint you badly. I think that there might be leaders of organisations on DU who had experience in leading guilds, alliances or what ever types of groups of players in other projects and who'll use their experience in building strong organisation in this new game. But it will be built here, not moved from somewhere else.
Returning back to topic as someone already wrote before we only have an information on the fact that DU developers are aware of problems during multiplayer activities. They think they have a way to solve these problems... It sounds intriguing for me and this is the main reason I am following the progress of DU development. As soon as there will be a chance to test what they have achieved and as soon as they will prove that they are able to achieve what they have set as a goal before them, I'll be glad to join other players and test how it works. If it works well and the game is fun, then I'll be glad to subscribe and become a customer. Until then it's... well Intriguing as I said, but that's it for now. It might become a big thing if it succeed and it can be forgotten quite soon if it won't show up good (or at least promising) results in like couple years from now (as people won't be following just promises for too long and let's not forget that some have even invested in promises - these might not be so quick on stopping following, but that might become a bigger problem later on :-) ).
All in all I wish all the best to this project, I hope it will deliver what has been promised as it would be fun to have such a game... but guessing of how "it will be" is way too early right now. And arguing about these things... well
I'll leave it to others to find the right name for such process -
21 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
And this right here is why you raise the issue. You do not see playing this game as a valuable purpose for your time, instead you see it as a filler at best.
The sub is $15/month which IMO is a perfectly fair and reasonable amount. If you feel that, in your words, you can't waste that amount on a game, you should not play and no amount of excuses or nonsense arguments will change that. If a $15 recurring sub is something you can't afford than you have the option of putting in the effort to make enough in game currency to pay for it that way, there are no freebies here.
Lastly, even if an hourly rate would be available, it would more than likely be so high, because of the risk/cost involved for NQ, that even playing 2-3 hours/week would make a monthly sub less expensive.
And again you are one of those, who entered discussion without reading it trough
but can't blame you on that now as the discussion became lengthy and it's not easy to read it through. As I am "wasting time" on discussion about game, which is not even released yet, I can afford some time to remind you that I wrote before: I am intending to pay monthly subscription for the DU game (when it will be released and if developers will actually deliver the game the way they introduced it) , I can afford it and actually I am subscribing other games right now. On other hand I am able to understand that that people are different and I know those who would really appreciate an option to pay per time spend in game. And I want as many players in game as possible.
And yes, I don't see any game as a goal of my life. Game is game - a way to spend free time. When I play, I play it seriously, pay attention to details and even waste time on forums reading through lengthy threads of discussions and participating in them
. But never the less game does not become main purpose of my life and achievements there are valuable and important to me only as long as they don't interfere with my real life.
-
On 9/24/2017 at 4:38 PM, Falstaf said:
Pfew, that was a lot to read.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the impact a pay by hour system would have on the play experience. Perhaps concider this is not how NQ looks at the player experience they want to offer.
Pay by the hour would mean a certain segment of the player base would be cut of from many aspects of the game. Imagine trying to build a ship or building while counting your minutes. No time to relax and socialize or explore the universe. You certainly wouldn't be able to build constructs with enough quality to sell. As such your player contribution would be second grade. Ask yourself if this fits with the games philosophy.
Talking about actual experience, how would a pay by the hour player even advance his skills? If you reduce the rate of xp gathering you would have a play experience that is just not viable. You play 5 hours per X, you wouldn't be able to advance or compete with a monthly sub player.
In the end even if it was a good idea to pay by the hour, it would create a second class player. That's not smart business. Nor is it the experience I think NQ is trying to create for their game.
Even when you are paying not by hour, but just a plain monthly subscription, you still have time limits for the in game time. For example I spend certain amount of time sleeping, then I have certain amount of hours I need to work, some extra time I need to make food, eat, clean home, spend time with family, friends and so on. And all in all I am left with some spare time which I can spend in game. I am limited on that time, though these limitations come not from monetization model, but from my obligations in other areas. Eventually I adjust my ingame ambitions and plans to the time I am able to waste on the game. The amount of time may differ and is different for different people. But we all are limited. The difference is only how active we are outside the game.
If you are unemployed, don't have family and spend all day in game except time you need to sleep and eat... does not mean that you can't benefit from cooperation with person, who has work and family and spends only couple hours a day in game or comes online only on weekends. He/she still can gather some raw materials, or come with interesting design solutions and have an important part in creation of big constructs as part of the team and contribute quite a meaningfully. So no, I don't agree with your argument.
Other point regarding "experience"... as far as it has been announced and is included into official DU wiki, learning of the skills does not depend on time spent in game it actually takes certain time to train, but you can do any activities meanwhile or even get offline: "learning doesn't stop when a player disconnects from the game." https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Skills#cite_note-2
-
19 hours ago, wizardoftrash said:
The harsh reality of it. A game with emergent play is better when the community is dedicated, allowing more people in at a discount won't improve it (aside from the fact that it might also cost more money than it makes).
The people in the category that would not play the game with its current sub, but would if it were pay-per-hour are worth losing.
"Emergent gameplay" generated by AI will never ever get even close to what emerges in contact with a real person. And even if that person has less time to spend in game than me I would never neglect his potential to have an impact on community and me. There are some conversations with people that happened in games years ago... we met once and never spoke again... but either they said something interesting, or we did some extremely fun things... and I still remember it now. Who knows how long did they play... who cares... all that matters is that their presence made an impact on me... and sometimes (I'd even say... often) you don't need much time for that. Even stupid actions of some players might become a legend - mind a "LEEROY JENKINS" from WoW - who knows if that guy ever played anything after his infamous adventure in a virtual dungeon. But these few minutes recorded years ago became "something". Some players don't even know where all this came from, but they'll understand what you mean if you'll say "don't leeroy on that boss", or you'll get all your team in a good mood if you'll shout "LEEROY!!!" before attack
Yes, I know how fun is to have a dedicated group of friends and play with them. But even the most dedicated and nice team will get dull and you'll get bored if you won't see new faces in a long time.
So no, I won't agree with you, wizardoftrash, noone is worth loosing and everyone is valuable - even those whom I don't like... and those who hate me are needed too
-
18 hours ago, Myriad said:
This topic just needs to stop, either pay sub or find a different game. In real life you don't get to choose how much you pay for a service.
Examples:
-I insure my truck but don't drive it every day, I still pay full price.
-I pay for data on my phone but don't always use it all, still pay full price.
-I have a gym membership but don't go every day, still pay full price.
-Pay for internet and cable at home but if I'm working lots I don't use it every day, still pay full price.
There are so many examples that the argument to pay for what you use is invalid.
If you don't like the sub model go find a different game, most of us probably won't want you here anyway.
Just in order to show how situational your arguments are:
- Car can be insured for a limited time (at least in my country that is) and if the person does not use car - he has an option not to renew insurance for a certain period - I know elder person who does not insure his car during the winter as he does not drive then. And yes, taking into account all the year it's better price to buy insurance for the whole year, than to renew it monthly. But if you consider keeping it in garage for 3 or even 5 months, other payment models might save some money.
- I have a lot of different payment plans for the phone where I am able to choose from not using data transfers to unlimited data transfer and I choose the one which fits my needs most. I can pay nothing for data if i choose to use that service not.
- where I live most of the gyms offer flexible payment plans - you can pay per visit, you can buy 5, 10 visits, you can buy monthly ticket or even a ticket for the year. The last one will be the most cost effective in long term again, as everywhere, but If I am just a visitor to this city and need just a few sessions in a gym, I have such an option.
- I have a lot of different options from different ISPs varying in data transfer speeds, data amounts and even technology itself, and the ISP i use and am happy about the price and service, is not acceptable for my colleague, who's not a gamer and he almost does not use internet, so he's satisfied with way cheaper plan from another ISP, thus way more limited than mine.
Who are those "us", and how many are those "most" who probably won't want someone (question is who are that or those "you" as well)
Most probably in all fairness it should have been written: "I (not us and not most of us, but plain and simply... I) did not like your (whose?) idea and I think, that I would not enjoy spending time with you in this game." That would sound more honest and fair And I am very glad, that you are not the one who chooses who's welcome and who's not in the game. All those who try to push their gaming habits, attitude toward the play style, schedule of playing and other things on others are wrong from the start. Project, which is multiplayer indeed, benefits from all and everyone. Even the person who logs into the game once a month for one hour can make very meaningful input into community if he spends that time wisely. Not everyone has ambitions to build virtual empires. Some players are satisfied just by relaxing, chatting with friends, making some role play stuff, or just joking out and making fun for themselves and others. And quite often those who don't spend much time in game bring more value to the community than those ho play day and night, get exhausted and end up claiming who's welcome and who's unwelcome in the game -
25 minutes ago, wizardoftrash said:
If we want to make that argument based on a users contribution to the forums, I see a little over a dozen posts on Monatization threads, and 2 about pvp. That tells me that someone is really only invested in how much the game is going to cost, and not so invested in the mechanics of the game itself.
I agree that people deserve an opinion, and they have the right to express them. However, the weight of those suggestions are not all equal. If we want to weigh this user's suggestions based on their contributions to the community, it boils down to complaints about the game's cost. I woudn't weight those contributions highly.
You got me
. I am not interested in PvP. And I manage to play as PvE even in a hardcore PvP projects like EvE online, Archage or several others. And I played there for years, paying subscription. Does it make my money I paid to these projects less valuable than money paid by hardcore PvPers? Guess not. Being able to see further than narrow needs of my own and understand why other players like different things than I do makes my opinion less valuable and worth considering? I honestly hope that developers do not share your opinion on that as they would bee doomed then And there's so much to discuss about game mechanics... about game which is in pre-alpha (sarcasm)
-
23 minutes ago, wizardoftrash said:
There we go, so you aren't even the example of a player who would play if it were pay per hour, but wouldn't play if it were a normal subscription.
So where are these mysterious potentially lost customers then, and are there enough of them to out-weight the loss in revenue for players like you who don't need pay per hour but would use it if it were cheaper. This is a no-brainer, don't rock the boat.
Again you do assumptions without even reading what the discussion was bout... where did you take "would use it if it were cheaper" argument? I'ts all your immagination as neither me nor TS wrote about it. If you would read carefully, you would see, that paying per hour is actually more expensive as you get less ingame time for the same money. But sometimes it's better to pay more per hour, while using those hours more effectively.
You don't like analogies with EvE online, but never the less I'll use example from there - you can play that game for ~15 € per month if you buy a subscription (less if you pay for several months in bulk), but it will cost you about 20€ if you use PLEX to pay for it. The trick is that you can sell PLEX in game for the internal currency (or buy it if you wish so) and some people end up paying more, just because it fits their needs more. If there would not be that option, some people, who use in game currency to pay for the subscription would not play that game at all, and those who do pay using cash and sell extra PLEX to fund their ingame activities would loose the option to exchange their RL cash for the ingame currency legally - they would need to spend more time grinding and earning in game currency thus get away from things they like more and probably consider leaving game too. All in all developer would loose potential sales and profit.
Flexibility and wider variety of the options help to meet the needs and expectations of wider audience and in a multiplayer you need it as wide as possible.
-
16 minutes ago, wizardoftrash said:
Which is better, devaluing your own product by letting less-dedicated people play, or provide a better experience for all players?
You are making the argument that a significant slice of the potential player base will just opt not to play if there is no per-hour option. Sounds like you are one of those players, and given that you aren't a founder or a backer, that means that you aren't a customer. Why should they or any of us listen to you?
"hey but it worked for someone else"
and NQ isn't CCCP. DU isn't EVE. this is a doozey of a false-equivalency.
Most of us are here to play the game we are paying for, we aren't here to play EVE.
No, I am not founder and I wrote already why - seen many projects that had great ideas and promised a lot, but failed badly while trying to implement those ideas. I like Ideas of NQ and I am ready to subscribe to DU if they'll deliver what they promise, but not until I'll see the working game worth of the money.
And yes, I am paying subscription for the games that are worth it in my opinion - I have active subscription for two different projects at the very moment. And no, I don't need some pay per hour myself, as I do play games quite regularly and monthly subscription is good enough for me. But never the less I understand that world does not spin around me alone and other people have different needs that I do, so the more options there will be, the bigger community we'll have, the better project it will become. I don't mind even meeting some beggars in game
- it's way better than empty server with few but proud and arrogant "founders - backers" (no offence - I met really nice and friendly founders here on forum and this is not about you guys )
Regarding the EvE online.. even the NQ developers do not hesitate to admit, that they are planing to use a lot of ideas from this game and this is normal as that project proved to be successful. So unless you want to hide behind ignorance wall there's nothing wrong in using examples from that project.
-
3 minutes ago, wizardoftrash said:
play or don't, that's up to you.
Exactly
And in case of developer it's "get paid or don't get paid". So which is better? To get paid once in a longer period of time... or not to get paid at all?
When CCCP introduced their PLEX system there were also whole flame of arguments that "this is beginning of P2W", "the game is dying", "you ruined the Idea of fair game" "Noone will be paying subscription and you'll loose more than earn". But you know what - CCP had courage to introduce innovative method and they benefited from it - a lot. But they only gave a decent option to players - nothing more. It sounded strange, it wasn't common neither for eastern, nor for the western market... but now it works fine in both... though methods and prices vary.
-
11 minutes ago, Hades said:
Until everyone (and all of their alts) start using pay as you go because it's cheaper.
Pay as you go never works. It has worked in the east, but this is the western market... don't adapt eastern methodologies in the western market. It NEVER works.
The last time I read introduction of DU it was positioning as "Global", not as "Western".
So you want to say, that money from the eastern market are not worth to be earned?
I would do some research if I would you and would find out how much the "eastern gaming market" is worth before making any statements -
2 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
Which is where you seem to not understand the economics of your suggestion.. they would not make money or much less at best.
And you deleted my second sentence which proves you are wrong
-
14 minutes ago, blazemonger said:
But you are.. Unless you are saying those who can should pay full price, those who can't should have the option to get in cheaper.
Simple truth of the matter is that playing (subscription based) games is a luxury some will not be able to afford.
Once again: this is not about "can pay" and "can't pay". I know people for example, who "can pay". But they are busy during the week days and they can play only on weekends. And in case of monthly subscription they are loosing most of their subscription for vain. Another example - I know a person who works such a way that he needs to travel a lot - sometimes couple weeks he works in home town and couple weeks he's out. And while he's on the trip he usually has no chance to play the game or use his subscription. And these people could be very loyal players and they "CAN PAY", but they want to pay fair price.
-
1 minute ago, Megaddd said:
Beneficial to the player? Maybe. Beneficial to the developer? Heck no.
Servers have an hourly cost, regardless of whether there's any processing being done on them or not. So you being offline and not paying loses them money.
But when people pay for the time they are online - developer gets money. Alternative in that case will be no income at all. Which is worse for developer?
-
I tried to write as simple as possible, but it seems that people just see what they want to see, not what's written...
On 9/17/2017 at 3:53 PM, blazemonger said:Next up, Student body expects big discount on DU subscription to allow their 'poor members' to also be able to play the game.
Bottom line here is simple, you either pay the sub or put in the effort to be able to generate in game wealth to the point where you do not need to. And make no mistake about it, buying play time with in-game currency will always be more expensive (when translated to $$) once the in game market starts doing it's job.
You simply can not claim a right to play a game because the economics in your region would make doing so much more expensive than elsewhere. NQ will budget cost and pay salaries based on where they are to get the people and services they need, not say 'we only pay you half average as we need to be able to have people living in X buy the sub as well'
You do not walk into a bakery expecting to be able to pay for three slices of bread at a time as you only eat that much per day. You buy the loaf and it will maybe sometimes go stale..
I DO NOT SUGGEST TO GIVE GAME FOR FREE OR TO GIVE IT CHEEPER TO ANYONE.
All I say - it would be beneficial both for the developer and for the players to have an option to buy a subscription based on time they intend to spend in game.
What I see now is the same if you would come to a food store for the milk and you'd be given the only option - to buy a 200 liter barrel of milk. And if you'd say, that you need only 1 liter bottle, there comes a "smartie" and says: "if I would have money only for 1 liter of milk I would not drink milk, neither go to food store until I would afford to buy a barrel". Yes, guys, your arguments are that stupid.
It's not about afford or not afford... expensive or cheep... There are simply people who don't need full month subscription. They can afford it, but they count their money and they don't want to buy a barrel, when actually they need half of it or even 1/200... Or lets put it another way: they agree to pay for a 200 liter barrel, but they ask: " can I pay for all these 200 liters in advance, but let me come to you and take 1 liter or even 0.5 liter at a time of fresh milk, when I need it instead of taking all the barrel at once and throwing most of it out as it will get spoiled in few days (in one month as we talk about monthly subscription). Yes, you can get stubborn and say: "either full barrel at once or no milk for you", but in that case this person won't buy from you and everyone looses - you sold nothing and he got no milk...
And I am sure, that most players will be fine with monthly subscription even if they won't play a lot. There has been a case in my own life that I was playing subscription based game for a while and paying by credit card and then I moved to another project, but few months later I noticed that the old project kept charging my credit card monthly, though I did not play it. I noticed it only several months later and it wasn't a big deal for me. Yea, I could start arguing, and could prove that I did not use their product, I could require refund, but I just forgot it and moved on. But this is me - other people count their money better that I do and they would not let such thing to happen. And these players, even if they'll be just a small fraction of all the player base, can still bring in some extra income to the project if they'll get heard and offered service on the terms acceptable for them.
-
16 hours ago, Lethys said:
playing video games is no human right; if they only get 300€ a month then they should work on improving their situation, not waste time in some VR
Hiding in your proud self confidence (which you most probably did not much to earn, just have been born in better environment) you don't even try to read what is written. I did not write about human rights and did not say, that someone should play game, which is commercial product without paying. All I wrote was that sometimes these few dollars or euros, which you (and me) are trowing out without care, are being earned way harder by others and they don't want to pay full price if they don't have time to play the game a lot because they are " improving their situation, not wasting time in some VR". If you are so confident in yourself, try to buy a ticket to some Eastern Europe country and see by yourself what these people do for 300 euros - I bet you have never ever worked in you life that well and that hard. And when you'll be there, see that, try to teach them how to "improve"
. And there are whole areas where these 300 per month are the top of "improving" as most of their neighbors don't have job at all. But if they would have an option to pay a decent fee for the time they have to spend in game, they might consider that option and that would bring additional funds to game developer - otherwise these funds won't reach him at all.
I know it because my father, retired man, lives in one of such small towns and knows locals, knows how hard they try to "improve", but often my father, ends up helping them though he's retired and gets only retirement pension. And this is not the worst country regarding level of the life. There are places even worse than that.
And once again - this is not about "have a pity on these poor people and give them game for free" - they don't want your pity - they just count their money bit more than me and you do... and they want to pay the price according to the time spent in game.
- sHuRuLuNi, Captain_Hilts, TheBlender and 1 other
-
4
-
I think CaptainTwerkmotor didn't actually get the idea which was proposed by topic starter AKA Captain_Hilts as he wrote it in a bit strange way and decided that Captain_Hilts means to ask price of 60 $ for 2 months of game, when actualy Captain_Hilts means that person pays the same 10$, but gets limited game time which he can consume within longer period of time. So let me rephrase this the way it seems more "readable" for me:
Option 1. For $10 you get Unlimited hours . 1 month to use it until it expires. Totally you'll pay 10$x12 months = $120/yr (this is the baseline Novaquark has already announced)
Option 2. For $10 you get 300 hours of game (online) time. You have 2 month to spend those 300 hours, and they will expire after those 2 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x6 installements(2 months each) = $60/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 1800hr/yr.
Option 3. For $10 you get 150 hours of game (online) time. You have 4 month to spend those 150 hours, and they will expire after those 4 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x3 installements(4 months each) = $30/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 450hr/yr
Option 4. For $10 you get 50hours of game (online) time. You have 6 month to spend those 50 hours, and they will expire after those 6 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x2 installements(6 months each) = $20/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 100hr/yr
I understand those who say, that developer needs to pay for server maintenance 24/7. But when the players do not actually play (stay online) server is less loaded, community managers do not get additional (new petitions); and players who are actually playing during that time, get less lag, get their petitions resolved faster and generally get better service thus are more satisfied and eager to use the service. On other hand game developer is motivating additional customer to pay for their service - yes, he pays less, but still he pays 20$ though he would consider it not worth of paying if he could play only 100 hours per year and needed to pay full price of 120 $.
And people, please understand, that players are living all over the world, not only in USA or rich Western Europe. Therefore what seems irrelevant to you might be quite important to others. I know that some people in my country are working for as low as 300 euro per month and consider themselves lucky to have this job as there are no other options in small towns they live in. Well, they have option - to move to bigger cities, or even immigrate to your country and take away your job for twice ot three times lower salary than you would ever consider fair
which you won't be happy about I suppose . And with all the due respect to your achievements and great input in development of your local economy (which I honestly doubt is true for those who enjoy flexing out how much they waste on coffee and so on) these people often work harder, longer and in way less comfortable environment than you do, still they want to enjoy some games during their free time. They want it for a fair price. And I see nothing wrong if they will get limited access for a smaller fee. It is well known fact, that for example WoW is using different monetisation system in China, than it's in NA and Europe. Players pay per online game time there and everyone is happy - both players and localisators of the game.
-
13 hours ago, Lord_Void said:
Alright, job was not the correct word to use, I'll give you that. How about this: it is in our best interest to help provide answers to people with questions so that they will join our community and help it grow. Telling them they are lazy or unintelligent for not having read or watched every piece of information put out over the last two years is not only unproductive, it spawns a group of people who feel wronged by the community and will do their best to tell everyone else about their negative experience.
It may not have had a question mark, but there was essentially a question in it. Helping to answer that implied question not only addresses their concerns, but also encourages them to seek out more information.
I'm not trying to tell how you can or can't respond, since I don't have that right. All I'm saying is that attacking someone for attacking someone/something is a bit hypocritical.
Great answer Lord_Void and really exemplary behavior.
I want this game to succeed... I want it a lot actually. But honestly, I have seen a lot of great ideas generated by game developers and still those ideas either have not been implemented or there were not enough technical capabilities to implement them. I am not IT specialist, neither engineer and I can't judge if the plans of NQ are valid and achievable. Therefore I fully understand skepticism of topic starter - I am bit skeptic myself. But people like Lord_Void make me want this game to succeed even more as it would be pleasure to play the same game with such a nice person.
While people like vylqun make totally different, opposite impression. If you are irritated by people who know less than you, did not read all the dev. blogs/logs and so on... just avoid threads like this... that will be way more useful for them, game community and... yourself too. If you can't/don't want / don't know how to help these people, then don't do anything - others who want/know/like helping (like Lord_Void ) will do it without frustration and everything will be fine.
-
Real sandbox (and this game is being introduced as one) makes no difference between "veteran" and newbro - as long as you have time to play and brought some shovel you'll be given plenty of sand to play with. If you play longer, may be you'll have better skills how to build nice looking sand castle and you'll have made more friends who are helping you to protect your creations from bully who likes to destroy stuff - or you might make more enemies over time if you have chosen to be that above mentioned bully :-) but otherwise it does not mater if you are veteran or not.
Talking about recognition of veterans, casual and hardcore players and stuff like that is all good and nice but reality is that if the game is too hardcore and rewards veterans for their time spend, then it will become more and more niche game over time with smaller player base. If it's too easy and too casual it will never keep the attention of players and motivate to stay in game for a long time. So eventually all that matters are social skills of the player it self: if he manages to make friends and have fun together with them then they'll probably create all they need from a truckload of sand, several shovels and couple of buckets. If you can't create your own content and don't have friends who can help you with that then any game will get boring, dull and pointless sooner or later.
-
Why does nobody like my playstyle
Open World PVP is necessary for a Space MMO,
tell me what is the first thing you think of when you hear Sci-FI or Space? Usually its Star Wars or Star Trek
And of what do you think then? The freaking awesome space battles. Sci-Fi games and combat are deeply connected and leaving open PVP out would do more harm than good (for the game)
Information disclosed by developers of EvE online which is one of the most hardcore PvP games, with full destruction/loot upon kill and possibility of PvP all over the universe (including high security sectors, just with harsher consequences for attacker) showed that only 13,8 % of players (bit more, than one in each ten) are involved in PvP during their ordinary game session (you can see the report http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68738/1/activity.16.png ) All other players do trade, PvE missions, exploration and so on, sometimes unintentionally getting caught by PvP as they are jumped by pirates. So we can assume that those who intentionally go for PvP are even less than 10 %. And you want to have even more PvP oriented game? Then it will be just pure shooter without any economy and any production/construction at all as noone will waste their time on other things if they’ll be jumped over from each corner and won’t have any security anywhere. And yes, player base will be limited to those 10-14 % who are interested in PvP – the rest will go for other games where they can do other things too.
- Goemoe and Pantydraco
-
2
-
From what I have read in devblogs I got impression that though the monetization model has not been decided yet, still the subscription of some kind is the way the developers are mostly inclined to go to. And I have read a lot of responses from potential players who tell, that they don’t like the idea about implementation of subscription as they have limited time to spend in game, therefore they would waste their money if they’ll be paying for whole month and will have time to play only few hours a day or even few days a month at all.
Therefore the best solution IMO would be to give them option to buy the time they actually play – they would not feel wasting their money on game that they do not play and still they would have ability to subscribe.
Other thing is that if the person buy only few hours of game time and it will cost him just small amount it might be problematic to sell it as transaction cost remains the same as if he pay for a monthly subscription, thus at some point it’s not cost effective to sell small installments of game time. I see the solution in making it possible to pay the same amount as the full month of game time would cost (or what ever the lowest subscription plan will be chosen) but make it possible for player to choose if he wants to pay for the full month, or he wants to play at a certain time and pay only for that time. It can be done that if the person decides to pay for the time he actually plays, he would pay at higher rate than it would be if he just choose ordinary monthly subscription, but still he could use his time more effectively. For example person has time to play game only on weekends Saturday-Sunday. This is prime time in game and server loads are the highest at that time, so it makes sense, that the rate that he’ll need to pay at will be double – he’ll get just 15 days of game time for the same price that would cost an ordinary subscription for 30 days. But still he would be able to play game for almost 2 month (on weekends only though). In my opinion that would make both game developer and the player satisfied.
Other thing, speaking about the server load and price for the time on it – even in a global server where everyone play in virtually same shard there are prime time when the server load is highest and there is lover load at a certain time. For instance experience of EvE Online (which is well known to developers of DU as I have seen) shows that the prime time on a global server is from around 15:00 untill 21:00 GMT. And the lowest load is from the early morning untill about 11-12 at GMT as this is the time when European players are at work/school and NA players are sleeping/waking up/going to work, so naturally there is a gap in a load. Taking that into account it might make sense if you would implement option to pay for the actual time in game, to diversify the rate according to the time when the player is playing: if he plays at weekend and during the prime time he pays higher rate and if he plays when the server is less loaded, he pays at bit lower rate. That would make players to feel that they are being billed more fair and in some cases may be it would even distribute the load on servers.
This diversification in payment models would require come additional coding and so on, but I think that for the developer who tries to implement the most modern technologies anyway it should not be big challenge. And the happy customers making wider auditory of subscribers should really cover the cost of development of this system.
-
There is no need to be hostile. As I stated in my post, I am uncertain about how quickly PLEX can be earned in EVE. If what you say is true, that I could play EVE online for 5 to 10 hours to earn a PLEX which gives me a month of game time, then I really should go ahead and download and play EVE.
Also, you failed to answer my last question about the PLEX system. What happens if my time expires? Is there a way I can reactivate my account without paying real money? Assume I play EVE's 14 day trial and have accumulated 5 PLEX in that time (possibly more if what you say is true). If I were to walk away from the game for a month what happens? Can I reactivate my account with the PLEX I have earned or do I have to pay money?
Let's stay civil.
I wasn't and I am not hostile, you can be absolutely sure of that
- I just stated that your information was wrong (totally).Regarding your question about reactivation of subscription after absence from game there are different ways: first of course you can reactivate your account for real money and continue from where you have left it (by the way, the skills in game continue to train for about 4 days even after your account is frozen). Second option which I think will sound most interesting for you is that you can activate service called "hours for PLEX" which means that you will get 4 hours of free game enough to activate PLEX which you had reserved from earlier subscription period, or buy PLEX on the ingame market and then activate if you have enough ingame money, but forgot to buy it. And the last option is that any friend in game can donate PLEX for you and reactivate your account as a gift. So it's easy to restart game after some time of inactivity.
Other thing regarding earning ingame currency and buying PLEX for it - don't get overexcited over it. Although it is possible to earn PLEX during the trial time and never pay real cash for the game (I know players who did it), most probably you won't be able to have "14 day trial and have accumulated 5 PLEX" as you wrote. First because trial account is limited in which skills you can train (and you don't have many skills anyway), what types of ships you can fly and so on and it won't be easy for you as a newbro to start earning big money right on trial account. Still it's possible if you'll have some veteran player to assist you with know-how and if you'll do some homework and study information about the game (there's a lot of it
). By the way, you can get special trial of 21 days if you'll get invited by veteran player. And if you'll find someone, who will be really kind, you can even get first PLEX for free as the person who have invited you to the game and you used him as referral to create a trial account will get one month of free game time once you pay first time for the game (either by cash or by PLEX). That's how I started my carrier in EvE - I got 21+30 days of free game time at the start.Once again, I am not hostile and more than willing to give correct information about EvE. Fell free to ask if you want something else either in this thread or by private messages. I hope we'll be able to become friends and be able to enjoy together either EvE in the meanwhile or DU when it becomes available.
07 (that's how we great co-players in EvE
) -
I'm very uncertain about earn to play currency (PLEX). From what I've heard about it from EVE online players is that it is next to impossible to earn it at a rate that would allow someone to play EVE online for free for any length of time. If the tokens (PLEX) were earned about once every 'normal play session' (which I assume is about 6 hours) and when activated lasted a substantial amount of time longer than the time it took to earn them, then they may be a fair alternative to the one time charge. My main concern with this token system is that it may become a grind for free players. If I'm going to be a free player, I want to enjoy the game as it is without having to worry about whether or not I have a Token to last me the next 24 hours of play.
You are either badly missinformed or are trying to distribute false information about PLEX system in EvE as all you have written is totally wrong. There are lot of people in EvE who subscribe to EvE using PLEXes bought for the ingame curency and never pay cash for it at all. One PLEX in EvE gives one month of game time. It costs bit more than ordinary game subsribtion therefore it's quite useful for Game developers to have subscribers who consume PLEXes. Never the less it's relatively easy to earn amount of ingame currency equal to the ingame price of the PLEX - it takes me about 5 to 10 hours of gameplay in a fun and easy form, spending time with other players and doing things that I actually enjoy and don't feel like grinding at all. I have used real money to subscribe there when I did not have time to earn ingame currency, but I have used PLEXes for subscription as well. And you can always see within ingame market how many PLEXes are on sale, and even see how many of them have been sold each day - the numbers are hudge. But all this is possible because the game promotes usage of ingame currency and there are variuos ways to loose this currency and you'll need more again which makes it easy to trade PLEXes at a decent price.
-
From what I have seen, developers of DU are pretty much inclined to use P2P + "PLEX" model and honestly that makes me very glad. This is great model and it works fine WHEN USED THE PROPER WAY. Now with the proper way... there start the complications. I know this system pretty well as I am active player of EvE Online since 2010 and I know how well it works. There are several myths that some people are trying to use in order to spook away those, who never been in that game and never seen the system from inside... "you'll need to mine asteroids all the month in order to get paid for the game time in order to mine asteroids the next month..." - anyone who played game really knows that it's not true - you can earn PLEX in EVE in two-three nights, playing 2-3 hours per night and doing it a fun way, in a group of other players and having fun (or even earn faster, just doing less fun and interesting things). And you can get necessary skills and ingame equipment to do that within ~ one month. Yes it takes time to read guides and you will most probably need good social skills to communicate with other players to get knowhow and to clear out a lot of questions - but isn't that the purpose of an MMO game after all?
So I know that this model works, I like how it works and I welcome the Idea to use it.
BUT I have seen how this model works well in EvE Online and I have seen how it FAILS in several other games that took the idea without the context it was used in.
First reason why PLEX system worked and still works fine in EvE is because game has essential ingame currency sinks and their ingame currency ISK is in constant demand. Players are constantly loosing big amounts of ISK (in several different ways) and they need more, therefore those who can afford to buy PLEX for IRL cash and sell it for the ISK, are quite eager to do that. The problem I have seen in ALL other games that tried to imitate this system was that they failed to create essential ingame currency sinks - there are huge amounts of ingame currencies that are floating around and generally just change the hands, but are never lost and disappear from the game, or if they do, then its just negligible percent of all the funds that are on players' hands. Thus there is no real demand for ingame cash, its almost useless and there is no reall market for those tokens - people don't sell them or if they do, then the price is so high (in order to make huge income of ingame currency which would allow to buy at least something really special in overinflated economy) that it almost does not make sense to pay it - that makes low demand for those overpriced tokens, sales become really stale, rare and thus people don't want to buy those tokens for IRL cash and wait for who knows how long to actually sell them for ingame currency... when EvE is totally opposite to that as literaly thousands of PLEX tokens are sold each day - sometimes they just change hands, as it's pretty good passive investment but quite often used for the ingame services: game time, vanity items (through aurum shop), character transfers, tickets for events and so on. So what makes PLEX in EvE really flourish is that there are plenty of ways to consume PLEX itself and there is a lot of way to consume and LOOSE FOR GOOD the ingame currency ISK as well. All that I seen in other games and I have seen quite a lot of them, who tried to implement the system of game time tokens, were not even close to the success of the PLEX in EvE.
I hope that developers of DU understand or will come to understanding of this aspect and won’t implement the bare token, but will create the system which would encourage demand for this token.
EVE Online's $1,000,000 Battle Bust and What it Means for Dual Universe
in General Discussions
Posted
All what you said is true with but one "but": it must be implemented in DU and it should work as intended...
For the time being the "dead" EvE has thousands of players that are logging into it each day, play it and are pretty much alive
and DU is a lot of fantasies, a bit of promises from developer and a wagon of speculations 
it may happen that even 25v25 will be impossible due to various reasons or we can see 25 000 v 25 000 batles and it will work out somehow though it did not work in other games - but may be NQ are really that good and they'll make revolution in game industry. We can only speculate, guess and argue now and none of this can be proven yet. Not until the game will be ready for a full load like open beta at least.
Eventually people have different expectations and goals in game. For example I don't care if there will be 5v5 or 500v500 fights. Those huge battles might be interesting to participate once or even see a video report from safe distance. But they are not the thing that "makes my watch tick". I am more interested if I'll be able to walk in a city without lag when there'll be multiple constructs and several players online... will I be able to to fly around a big space station or a fleet of them and some smaller spaceships without having lags and loosing control of my ship... will I be able to do things that are interesting to me without facing bugs, lag and so on.... Others might be interested in other thing and all in all the game success will depend on how many people will see something in this game that will attract them and how good those functions will really work.