Summer Expansion - Incarna

[Amaron]

By your definition, phsyics is not a science because it is applying scientific rigor[formal science] to study something not science [natural science], and neither is biology[life science] or engineering [applied science]. Actually out of all of those fields, the applied is the only one you might have a chance of arguing as "not science".

What?  Science means natural science in this context .    You can't honestly claim that you don't know what people mean when they say economics is not a science.   You've clearly heard the point before based on how defensive you got over it.

Now we were not talking about buying skillpoints.

Ahh but that's all I was talking about.    Your points on what they could do instead are well taken.    Some of it I hadn't even considered obviously and that shows Economics is not totally a waste of time at least :).   As to why they won't come back that's a pretty huge topic but there's plenty of research to show that players who quit on bad terms are far less likely to return.

[Goumindong]

What?  Science means natural science in this context .    You can't honestly claim that you don't know what people mean when they say economics is not a science.   You've clearly heard the point before based on how defensive you got over it.

Biology is not a "natural science". You cannot seriously claim that people don't mean "science" when they say "science" because I am pretty sure you said "science" and not "the natural sciences".  It means study by way of the scientific method.

Ahh but that's all I was talking about

fair enough. But again, if people have a reason to think its temporary they will smooth their consumption.  That is to say that if they think the price will be lower in the future they will buy in the future. And while "selling skillpoints" may push people out of the game, it is not the demand shift that would do it, at least not as it makes sense to think about a demand shift.

A good way to think about it would be like this.

Let us call demand at t=0 to be d(q)=q [where d(q) is the demand function generating price from quantity, and q is quantity, and t is time). and demand at t=2 to be d(q)=q+2. If we are saying that t=1 is the event that causes the shift, I.E. the introduction of selling skillpoints then we cannot disentangle the effects from people saying "fuck this" and quitting with the effects of people saying "well, i kinda want to buy skillpoints" and then doing so.

The sum total of those effects is made up in the "+1". Because they happen at the same time, and are "one off" effects, it is actually impossible to tell which effect is which (statistics! ) But what happens at t=1? Well, if people expect that the price at t=2 is going to be "q+1" then they aren't going to pay more for it at t=1 and so we expect that d(q) is going to equal q+1 at t=1.

Now this ignores present value discounting and some amount of irrationality. BUT we can say that the people who quit because of the "fuck selling skillpoints effect" aren't going to be those moderating the strength of the temporary demand shock. The entirety of the people who are moderating the strength of the temporary demand shock are doing so because they want to keep playing the game, they just think the price is too high at this moment. This gives us some amount of leeway in our expectations, we expect a spike then falloff [because of present value discounting] and we expect some amount of volatility from irrationality [I.E. some people not realizing the price will fall and what this means for what decision they should make]

If selling skillpoints was only a temporary effect then I could see your point[there would be a spike and then prices would eventually return to normal as things corrected]. But we don't have a good reason to believe this. Skillpoint selling would be useful not only to people immediately, but also to people in the future. For all the people who don't know what they want to train and then figure it out, to all the people who join later, to all the people who do not need fully trained characters now, but might in the future. These people will mean that after some initial shock of backlog, there is still going to be an increased demand.

And because of it we can still expect increased prices. And we don't expect it to fall in demand because we have "pushed people out of the market". Those people who are pushed out of the market simply don't matter anymore since someone is there to buy more plex in their stead. [that is, so long as we assume the net shock would be positive]

[Amaron]

Biology is barely a natural science.  I say barely only because you need to constantly remind those guys that they can't go applying their specific case data/models all over the place.

It means study by way of the scientific method.

Not when I'm looking down my nose at you it doesn't!  You social science people need to learn your place!    Seriously though my original point with the Science snark is you say things like they are fact or easily predictable in a way that breaks down my ability to even follow what you are saying.

And while "selling skillpoints" may push people out of the game, it is not the demand shift that would do it, at least not as it makes sense to think about a demand shift.

Like this.  You've stated as fact that people wouldn't be pushed out of the game via a demand shift.   When you do this my programmer brain just says Garbage in garbage out.   I don't think you mean to do that but what does thinking about a demand shift mean in this context?   Why does doing that throw out the central point of the argument?

Now this ignores present value discounting and some amount of irrationality.

Isn't this going to introduce a huge degree of error?  I mean that makes sense in a market situation.   This is a cash shop though.   Extremely high financial irrationality is guaranteed.

[Goumindong]

Not when I'm looking down my nose at you it doesn't!  You social science people need to learn your place!  why so serious?  Seriously though my original point with the Science snark is you say things like they are fact or easily predictable in a way that breaks down my ability to even follow what you are saying.

Not to be rude, but if you knew anything about statistics and measurement you would know that what we can determine empirically about social behavior is no more or less "easily predictable" than what we can do with physics. [part of this is a problem with determining precision within systems that operate in two different units, the other part is a remark on the problems of precision with regards to the truth]. The world is not likely to be an invertible function. Once you accept that there can be multiple theories that can explain the recorded data[either due to imprecision or due to simply a plurality of possible situations] the "natural sciences" are just as wobbly as the rest of the group.

Now, we may not view them in that manner [for a number of reasons, both good and bad]. But formally? We don't even have a way of saying whether or not one is any more or less true than any other, we can only make judgments within relate-able units[which we don't have]

Like this.  You've stated as fact that people wouldn't be pushed out of the game via a demand shift.   When you do this my programmer brain just says Garbage in garbage out.   I don't think you mean to do that but what does thinking about a demand shift mean in this context?   Why does doing that throw out the central point of the argument?

So how about we think of supply and demand in a different way. Do not think of them as functions, think of them as sets. The demand set consists of ordered tripples. The information recorded in the first slot, is the person, in the second slot is a price, and the third slot is the quantity that that person will purchase at that price. When you call the "demand function" you are simply getting the number of people and quantity that they will purchase at that price.

If we mapped that function we would have a curve. The supply set is the exactly the same way except that it relates the quantity people would be willing to sell at any given price.

The demand curve will tend to slope down because there are few goods where people want to buy more as the price gets higher. Individuals might, but as an aggregate, very rare. For the same reason, supply slopes up. People are operating under constraints and so no matter what the last good is more expensive than the first.

A "Demand shift" can be thought of as sliding the curve or changing the components of the set. This is what is important in this context. "Selling Skillpoints" will have two effects. It will cause people to say "fuck it" and leave the game immediately and it will cause people to want to purchase more plex at any given price level. The people who get "priced out of the market" but didn't leave because "fuck selling skillpoints" are still in the set. If the market changes so that their price returns, they're going to start buying again.

What you seem to be saying is that as the price increases, some of those people will leave the set and not return. I.E. lets say that you will buy plex so long as they are under 300m isk. And the price moves to 350m isk. For what you say to be true, you would have to say "350m isk, no way will i pay that, since its so high right now, i will only pay 250m isk!". Otherwise, once the price fell from 350 to 300, you would start buying. If you're not, we are left to wonder what happened to change your preferences.  The current price should not have any effect on the price you're willing to pay.

Now, it may not be the case that something has a net positive demand shift. But we don't have any reason to believe that this would not. Do you really believe that selling skillpoints will cause so many people to leave that the people buying skillpoints with plex would not flood the people not doing so? If so then we aren't talking about a positive shift, we are talking about a negative shift and its not because of prices, its because the effect of the change was actually negative.

aside on equlibirum:
So if we combine these two aspects we are left with the price and quantity in the market being roughly a function of the sets of supply and demand.

And we are comparing demand tomorrow and supply tomorrow with demand today and supply today.

So if we are explicitly saying that demand is increasing [and we are] and we are explicitly saying that supply is not increasing [and we are] we can explicitly determine that prices will rise, and not fall.

The question is simply "do we expect demand to rise".

You seem to be implying that we cannot determine that, or that we cannot determine what demand will look like in the future. This is not true, we may not be able to determine precisely the price and quantity, but we aren't trying either, we just want to know if its going to go up or if its going to go down.

Isn't this going to introduce a huge degree of error?  I mean that makes sense in a market situation.   This is a cash shop though.   Extremely high financial irrationality is guaranteed.

Irrationality has a very specific definition which is not easily achieve. We may think that people are behaving irrationally because we see them make "stupid" decisions, but what we are observing is probably not irrational. Irrationality has much more to do with inconsistency than it does with making stupid decisions.

Irrationalities are much more akin to inconsistencies. For instance if you measure a persons discount rate for a future month, then measure it again some time in the future[for the same month you measured earlier], its probably going to change [change that cannot be attributed to changes in the general condition of the world]. If you ask someone if they prefer x to y and they tell you y, then adding z to that set and asking them to choose between x, y, and z may yield the answer x. If you ask someone the same question, but frame it in a different way[with regards to profit/loss] people will change their answer. People also seem unable to comprehend very small or very large probabilities[but are very good at dealing with probabilities closer to 50/50] so long as they're not actually zero or 1. They overestimate small probabilities and underestimate large ones.

These are irrationalities. "Bad decisions" generally aren't.

The fact that we are dealing with a cash shop doesn't matter. The irrationalities we would deal with would have to deal with how people discount the future value of products and how that discounting value changes.

[Amaron]

Not to be rude, but if you knew anything about statistics and measurement you would know that what we can determine empirically about social behavior is no more or less "easily predictable" than what we can do with physics.

You don't know anything about my knowledge of statistics and measurement.   *I* haven't even discussed that topic or even said anything to imply my knowledge of that topic.  So yea stop being rude for no reason.   

"Selling Skillpoints" will have two effects. It will cause people to say "fuck it" and leave the game immediately and it will cause people to want to purchase more plex at any given price level. The people who get "priced out of the market" but didn't leave because "fuck selling skillpoints" are still in the set.

That's a point I'm not willing to agree with.   There is far too much evidence showing people who leave under duress will not come back to an MMO without the passage of a lot of time or a large incentive.   So thus they are not still in the set.  They will not return if their price returns.

If you're not, we are left to wonder what happened to change your preferences.

There are so many things causing a possible change of price preference here.   Social implications of leaving a group and being out of touch with it.   Anger at being forced to leave.   Getting out of the habit.   Desire to see friends you haven't seen lately.  Nostalgia.  Some good some bad.  The list goes on for a long time.   How can there possibly be any wonder at the concept that their preference will change.   Considering our lack of brain reading devices we can only fall back on empirical evidence which says many won't come back.

Do you really believe that selling skillpoints will cause so many people to leave that the people buying skillpoints with plex would not flood the people not doing so?

Honestly how many times on this specific point do I have to agree with you before you'll stop rehashing it?  I've agreed like four times now.

[eldaec]

Jesus fucking christ please stop the Goumindong mirror match now.

[Amarr HM]

please stop the Goumindong

[palmer_eldritch]

please stop

[Der Helm]

please

[Sir T]

Maybe you two shousl start your own thread about abacuses and internet space ships and have yoru discussion there? Just a suggestion.

The rest of us just want to enjoy the rage and suffering. Is that too much to ask? 

[tgr]

Yes.

[Amaron]

The rest of us just want to enjoy the rage and suffering. Is that too much to ask? 

They stopped raging at EvE Online since they're a bunch of muppets so I had to create more suffering here.     I'll stop though.   On a new topic why the hell is Mittani ok with this nonsense where they are going to keep working on Incarna instead of spaceships?

[Kageru]

His statement was something along the lines of, "Nothing is going to stop CCP doing it". It's effectively a tech demo for their new Dust/WoD engine and they're deeply invested in getting those two flops products out to market.

[Setanta]

I decided on the ragequit thing (in as much that I didn't really rage) a few days ago, I just don't trust CCP and will wait it all out a bit to see what happens (and if they actually do bring a hanger back in).

Now, with my $45 that I don't spend on 3x Eve subs anymore, should I buy a WoW sparkle pony and vanity pups or a fair few TF2 hats and weapons? :D

[Amaron]

I guess if they are so invested they can't even take a break in this crisis I'm going to stay unsubbed too.   It will be interesting to see the server activity in a couple weeks.  Seems like most of the muppets are resubbing though.

[Sir T]

The rest of us just want to enjoy the rage and suffering. Is that too much to ask? 

They stopped raging at EvE Online since they're a bunch of muppets so I had to create more suffering here.     I'll stop though.   On a new topic why the hell is Mittani ok with this nonsense where they are going to keep working on Incarna instead of spaceships?

Yeah. Seriously the words "battered wives syndrome" kept coming into my head when I was reading the threads on EveO

[Thrawn]

Yeah. Seriously the words "battered wives syndrome" kept coming into my head when I was reading the threads on EveO

I got that feeling from reading the CSM statement even.  Did they even accomplish anything or did they just go and get drunk and sent home happy?  Most of the statements are things that had been said before anyways.

[palmer_eldritch]

They do seem to have got a guarantee that CCP aren't going to sell items in the cash shop that give an advantage in-game to the owner. That was the main concern for a lot of people.

[tgr]

"an unfair advantage".

[Thrawn]

They do seem to have got a guarantee that CCP aren't going to sell items in the cash shop that give an advantage in-game to the owner. That was the main concern for a lot of people.

Except that they didn't, they got told they currently have "no plans to introduce any game-affecting virtual goods".  So if tommorow they make plans to start selling gold ammo they never lied.  That CSM/CCP joint statement was really dissapointing.

[Numtini]

On a new topic why the hell is Mittani ok with this nonsense where they are going to keep working on Incarna instead of spaceships?

From his column, he seems to have drank the cool aid in terms of its ability to bring new players to the game. I've never bought that, but at least when Incarna was a fantasy that we hadn't seen, it was a plausible position to take.

What I can't understand though is how anyone could look at the actual product and think it had any future. To me, with the clunky performance, massive card melting system requirements, and obvious bad design elements (like the coffee table you bump into) it looks like a system that needs to go back to a blank sheet of paper. If this was an alpha and I was an investor, I'd take the loss as a writeoff and shut it down.

[tgr]

Eh, it's not that bad. Settings that cause performance problems can be optimized/deselected, and small niggly things like the coffee table can be designed out if they're made aware of it. Literally the only thing that annoys me about CQ is 1) it's not voluntary, and 2) WHY CAN'T I RUN.

[tmp]

2) WHY CAN'T I RUN.

You have to learn to walk before you can run 

and, well

[tgr]

Whoever came up with that, kudos.

[TripleDES]

The big problem with Incarna as new player draw is that the players who'll be attracted by this shit will have a continual big interest in the avatar part of the game. And most importantly, like to customize. If you're being taxed a Jackson for every pair of virtual socks, they'll be put off.

[VainEldritch]

The big problem with Incarna as new player draw is that the players who'll be attracted by this shit will have a continual big interest in the avatar part of the game. And most importantly, like to customize. If you're being taxed a Jackson for every pair of virtual socks, they'll be put off.

If there's one thing other games have proven it's that there's no limit to the willingness of people to exchange their money for pixi-crack. Provided the Nex is stocked with a "prices for all" range it'll work.

On a new topic why the hell is Mittani ok with this nonsense where they are going to keep working on Incarna instead of spaceships?

From his column, he seems to have drank the cool aid in terms of its ability to bring new players to the game. I've never bought that, but at least when Incarna was a fantasy that we hadn't seen, it was a plausible position to take.

What I can't understand though is how anyone could look at the actual product and think it had any future. To me, with the clunky performance, massive card melting system requirements, and obvious bad design elements (like the coffee table you bump into) it looks like a system that needs to go back to a blank sheet of paper. If this was an alpha and I was an investor, I'd take the loss as a writeoff and shut it down.

Mittani's column was spot on for me. The message of "adapt or die" is clear. I've had no problem with either performance or "card melting" but I understand that others have. As a first step, Incarna must be taken as such.

I'd rather CCP worked on a more accessible Eve and tolerate the development bugs (like an mmorpg) than have them bury what is a great game even deeper in its corner until no “outsider” can see nor would want to see through the dense shadows.

[Amaron]

All this discussion of what Incarna is going to do feels awfully optimistic.   The idea is fine but CCP seems to have an institutional problem with creating good client code.   Space stuff is easy on the computer specs at least.

[Kageru]

Asking your customers to upgrade their equipment for great new gameplay graphics is one thing. Forcing an upgrade for a cosmetic and useless addition to the game that your customers want to be optional anyway is a poorly managed transition. But then isn't that CCP all over.

[tgr]

The ideal way to do it (and tbh I'm not sure why they didn't do this to start with) would be so you dock and retain the shipspinning/etc interface, and you can select to disembark and enter the station interface.

Best of both worlds.

(Additionally, I'm not sure if having the CQ interface set at MAXIMUM QUALITY as default is exactly the best strategy ever to take, maybe have it set to whatever your other settings were, or ... dare I suggest it ... ASK the first time around?

[Amaron]

(Additionally, I'm not sure if having the CQ interface set at MAXIMUM QUALITY as default is exactly the best strategy ever to take, maybe have it set to whatever your other settings were, or ... dare I suggest it ... ASK the first time around?

You think they have anything coded that lets you turn down the quality?  I don't see any settings and this is CCP.

[Kageru]

The ideal way to do it (and tbh I'm not sure why they didn't do this to start with) would be so you dock and retain the shipspinning/etc interface, and you can select to disembark and enter the station interface.

Suggested several thousand times, officially proposed by the CSM, consistent with the "lore" of Eve such as it is, convenient to give a window for people to upgrade their hardware and allows those who don't give a shit about incarna to opt out.

And of course the last one is the problem and reason it did not get done that way.

[tgr]

You think they have anything coded that lets you turn down the quality?  I don't see any settings and this is CCP.

"Interior quality" definitely turned down the detail when I tried it.

And of course the last one is the problem and reason it did not get done that way.

Yeah, I kinda figured.

[eldaec]

Best way to turn quality down to a sensible level is to untick 'Load Station Environments'.

[Nevermore]

The ideal way to do it (and tbh I'm not sure why they didn't do this to start with) would be so you dock and retain the shipspinning/etc interface, and you can select to disembark and enter the station interface.

Wait, I assumed this is always how it would be implemented.  Why in the world would they do it any other way?

[Mrbloodworth]

On a new topic why the hell is Mittani ok with this nonsense where they are going to keep working on Incarna instead of spaceships?

From his column, he seems to have drank the cool aid

There is no cool aid in that.

I booted up the client this weekend. CQ is very cool, and its quite easy to see its the first step in something larger. CCP has allays insisted they are building a universe, not JUST a space game.

The performance was not bad at all ( I was running at about 45-60 FPS ), however I could see if you were a multi-boxer or have a very old system you may have issues. Once CQ is likely more textures and ploys that most who have been playing eve have ever seen on one view perspective. Space is cheap to render ( Sky box + some sprites + a handful of low poly ships + Normal map/shader overhead ).

Personally, the interaction in the CQ is likely how eve should have launched on day one, instead of eleventy billion windows and simple functions buried 4 clicks deep ( There seems to be 3 ways to do everything ). I found clicking on the screens, mirrors and ship hologram much more intuitive then using the old methods. If they hold this path they very well will increase the player base more than they have now, being just a ship is a big turn off to those not already of the converted.

All and all, IMO, what I have read, and seen in game, is an old player base adverse to change. From what I can see, if you are new, you won't care you will likely even bee more drawn to the game, if you are years invested, you take the development of the toon portion as a slight. Even if on the whole its going to improve the game. Of course, i have found out while there have been improvements in the new user experience, it still needs work. Eve is just as much a browser game that happens to have ship graphics as ever.

*shrug*

Whats with the computer lady not saying the same thing in the tutorial window? And also, her timing in conjunction with the missions you get from the various tutorial agents leads to a bunch of confusion point IE: Shes ahead, talking about things not even granted to you until you complete the mission. I do agree, in the CQ a more brisk jog may be needed. I also agree, leave pod should be an option, as it stands now, sometimes you don't need to go to your room.