Forums » General
I suppose I was just in the mindset of thinking of behavioral incentive systems that would encourage both initial and long-term participation in this Long Term Subscriber program business
I can think of some behavioral incentive systems that would encourage both initial and long-term participation in this Long Term Subscriber program business; they're called good game-play updates.
I can think of some behavioral incentive systems that would encourage both initial and long-term participation in this Long Term Subscriber program business; they're called good game-play updates.
I can think of some behavioral incentive systems that would encourage both initial and long-term participation in this Long Term Subscriber program business; they're called good game-play updates.
Except that participation in this Long Term Subscriber program is a means to an end to encourage year-round subscription, and if good gameplay updates alone were enough to ensure that then this initiative would be unnecessary. Clearly, this is not the case.
Suppose for a moment that a player knows ahead of time that they're going to be without internet access for a month. Even the best gameplay updates ever are useless aren't sufficient incentive in that case; the player has financial incentive to just let their subscription lapse for the month they'll not be playing anyway and resubscribe the following month. A properly effective behavioral incentive would give a concrete reason to maintain the subscription during the month the player isn't around to play, beyond just a general sense of altruism and goodwill towards the devs. The bulk subscription discounts are one such incentive to that end that already exists.
Except that participation in this Long Term Subscriber program is a means to an end to encourage year-round subscription, and if good gameplay updates alone were enough to ensure that then this initiative would be unnecessary. Clearly, this is not the case.
Suppose for a moment that a player knows ahead of time that they're going to be without internet access for a month. Even the best gameplay updates ever are useless aren't sufficient incentive in that case; the player has financial incentive to just let their subscription lapse for the month they'll not be playing anyway and resubscribe the following month. A properly effective behavioral incentive would give a concrete reason to maintain the subscription during the month the player isn't around to play, beyond just a general sense of altruism and goodwill towards the devs. The bulk subscription discounts are one such incentive to that end that already exists.
"Except that participation in this Long Term Subscriber program is a means to an end to encourage year-round subscription, and if good gameplay updates alone were enough to ensure that then this initiative would be unnecessary. Clearly, this is not the case."
You must live in some sort of strange alternate universe where vendetta gets regular good game-play updates to the extent we can establish that. Can I come and live there with you?
You must live in some sort of strange alternate universe where vendetta gets regular good game-play updates to the extent we can establish that. Can I come and live there with you?
TRS, you're kind of an ass for implying that at no time in the entire decade-plus history of our game (of which you've only been around for a small fraction) have we ever made regular good game-play updates. You also appear to have not actually read his message, since the example of a user being without internet (or as is often the case, time), makes your whole argument irrelevant.
The point he's making is to give some value to continued subscription that bridges boundaries of temporary availability, and causes people to continue to be personally invested in the progress of the game.
The point he's making is to give some value to continued subscription that bridges boundaries of temporary availability, and causes people to continue to be personally invested in the progress of the game.
dude, if grass could talk, would it be angry for being stepped on
Lol!
Hey! You're kind of an ass for implying that I haven't been around long enough to know what makes this a good game, and one worth sticking around for.
The point he's making is to give some value to continued subscription that bridges boundaries of temporary availability, and causes people to continue to be personally invested in the progress of the game.
The point I was making is that you can do that with game mechanics; guilds, persistency, possibility of continued political influence and other features that allow people to connect from outside of the game are a huge part of that, and they're underdeveloped here (which is not a secret). That's all I was saying.
This is a step in the right direction, implicit assery notwithstanding.
Hey! You're kind of an ass for implying that I haven't been around long enough to know what makes this a good game, and one worth sticking around for.
The point he's making is to give some value to continued subscription that bridges boundaries of temporary availability, and causes people to continue to be personally invested in the progress of the game.
The point I was making is that you can do that with game mechanics; guilds, persistency, possibility of continued political influence and other features that allow people to connect from outside of the game are a huge part of that, and they're underdeveloped here (which is not a secret). That's all I was saying.
This is a step in the right direction, implicit assery notwithstanding.
TRS, why are you trolling here? You don't play, you don't subscribe, you only troll 100 with your idiotic ideas and try to change VO into a TRS-land over here. I'm really sorry for you as you seem nothing better to do with your time.
That being said, devs doing great changes to the game, non-stop, as long as I'm here. I know how difficult it is to change the whole infrastructure of a running software just to implement a tiny feature. And I salute devs for being able to run a single software on such a number of platforms. If the game software were open source, it could be thought in universities as a case study of good programming (just like Neverwinter Nights (TM) did at its time, its open parts did at least).
In my opinion, a good infrastructure comes first, then contents can be created on it freely and safely.
That being said, devs doing great changes to the game, non-stop, as long as I'm here. I know how difficult it is to change the whole infrastructure of a running software just to implement a tiny feature. And I salute devs for being able to run a single software on such a number of platforms. If the game software were open source, it could be thought in universities as a case study of good programming (just like Neverwinter Nights (TM) did at its time, its open parts did at least).
In my opinion, a good infrastructure comes first, then contents can be created on it freely and safely.
The point I was making is that you can do that with game mechanics; guilds, persistency, possibility of continued political influence and other features that allow people to connect from outside of the game are a huge part of that, and they're underdeveloped here (which is not a secret). That's all I was saying.
NO. These have very little value in reducing churn from users who have drastically diminished time or internet connectivity. So, what I'm saying is that you are incorrect, and there's like two decades of data on online game churn rates, and umpteen papers and GDC presentations from other companies who have experimented with their own users. Not to mention our own data, and my decade of comparing notes with friends who run the largest and most successful MMOs in the world.
And, frankly, that was not "all you said". If that HAD been all you said, it would not have irritated me.
NO. These have very little value in reducing churn from users who have drastically diminished time or internet connectivity. So, what I'm saying is that you are incorrect, and there's like two decades of data on online game churn rates, and umpteen papers and GDC presentations from other companies who have experimented with their own users. Not to mention our own data, and my decade of comparing notes with friends who run the largest and most successful MMOs in the world.
And, frankly, that was not "all you said". If that HAD been all you said, it would not have irritated me.
What and that data says you have to manipulate your customers into spending money on a product that they aren't going to use, instead of making the product something they can use in a way that has value over time even if they don't have an internet connection or time to play this month?
And to be crystal clear, I am posing the question philosophically, not to imply that you're attempting to manipulate people. My understanding is that you're working on building vendetta into something that has long term value with 2.0 and that the LTS program is more to formalize something that already exists.
And to be crystal clear, I am posing the question philosophically, not to imply that you're attempting to manipulate people. My understanding is that you're working on building vendetta into something that has long term value with 2.0 and that the LTS program is more to formalize something that already exists.
What and that data says you have to manipulate your customers into spending money on a product that they aren't going to use, instead of making the product something they can use?
It says that straw-man arguments are not really a useful contribution to discussion. (Heh, nice edit).
Also, if we can add value in some way to get people to sustain their subscriptions across gaps in availability, we're more likely to survive. If the value they receive is worth maintaining their subscription across gaps, that isn't manipulative.
Definitely as opposed to a lot of "free games".
It says that straw-man arguments are not really a useful contribution to discussion. (Heh, nice edit).
Also, if we can add value in some way to get people to sustain their subscriptions across gaps in availability, we're more likely to survive. If the value they receive is worth maintaining their subscription across gaps, that isn't manipulative.
Definitely as opposed to a lot of "free games".
It says that straw-man arguments are not really a useful contribution to discussion. (Heh, nice edit).
Really more of a clarification than anything.
Crucifixion by implication is a pet peeve of mine, if I really thought you never did a good update i'd have no problems telling the world.
Really more of a clarification than anything.
Crucifixion by implication is a pet peeve of mine, if I really thought you never did a good update i'd have no problems telling the world.
I'm pretty sure what's being alluded to is a benefit nowhere near as great as those you can get by actively participating in the world, but significant enough that being subscribed while temporarily inactive isn't just money down the drain. I'm someone who doesn't have a lot of money but has followed VO for a long time on and off, and have had several problems which have meant that continually subscribing to a game I can't actually spend much time playing would have been a terrible idea considering how much value I need to squeeze out of my very limited amount of disposable cash.
What I reckon would work is that you give players extra missions, tasks, wacky achievements to complete based on the time they've been subscribed, that grow in complexity based on the avatar's age, and instead of the typical practice that renders them unavailable if the player isn't able to complete them during a limited period, you allow them to stock up to say, 5, or 10, or more. That way, when a player has been subscribed but inactive for a while, they have a nice list of Stuff To Do! that would count towards something that you can't get anywhere else. On top of that, it'd encourage players to pop back in for a few hours a month to take care of this stuff.
That's probably not readable, but still.
The reward needs to be something that is useful but not required, and something that makes the game interesting without conferring an advantage to certain players, and that most importantly adds a degree of depth- or hell, even an interesting metagame, if a good system can be thought up. My personal suggestion would be tying this into a perks system running alongside player standings, that provides economic and availability benefits- preferential treatment for the player- for a specific area of the universe, and this is easily done, I think.
Because the only thing in Vendetta's universe that makes sense on this kind of time scale?
A space station. You give players the ability to visit their own pocket sector of a system, and set up a Ceres ring. This can eventually tie in really nicely with the guild and conquest systems, too, but I would imagine that to be another dreaded Long Term Goal, so all I'm suggesting is that you offer a player based on those regular missions and achievements, which are tied to time subscribed, a small station to call their own. A sector that doesn't exist for anyone other than the player that owns the station, and the server itself, just stored away neatly until the player warps there from the system it's linked to.
You use those special brownie points to maintain and upgrade your very own station. Is that feasible or even desirable?
What I reckon would work is that you give players extra missions, tasks, wacky achievements to complete based on the time they've been subscribed, that grow in complexity based on the avatar's age, and instead of the typical practice that renders them unavailable if the player isn't able to complete them during a limited period, you allow them to stock up to say, 5, or 10, or more. That way, when a player has been subscribed but inactive for a while, they have a nice list of Stuff To Do! that would count towards something that you can't get anywhere else. On top of that, it'd encourage players to pop back in for a few hours a month to take care of this stuff.
That's probably not readable, but still.
The reward needs to be something that is useful but not required, and something that makes the game interesting without conferring an advantage to certain players, and that most importantly adds a degree of depth- or hell, even an interesting metagame, if a good system can be thought up. My personal suggestion would be tying this into a perks system running alongside player standings, that provides economic and availability benefits- preferential treatment for the player- for a specific area of the universe, and this is easily done, I think.
Because the only thing in Vendetta's universe that makes sense on this kind of time scale?
A space station. You give players the ability to visit their own pocket sector of a system, and set up a Ceres ring. This can eventually tie in really nicely with the guild and conquest systems, too, but I would imagine that to be another dreaded Long Term Goal, so all I'm suggesting is that you offer a player based on those regular missions and achievements, which are tied to time subscribed, a small station to call their own. A sector that doesn't exist for anyone other than the player that owns the station, and the server itself, just stored away neatly until the player warps there from the system it's linked to.
You use those special brownie points to maintain and upgrade your very own station. Is that feasible or even desirable?
^^This.
-1. Magic is stupid.
An instanced station that only you can visit? That's really an attractive thing? I mean, I get the analogues, Anarchy Online had your "apartment" that you could decorate and stuff like that. But I never personally saw much appeal to content that's basically a single-player warm-fuzzy (aside from it also being kind of magical).
We are of course working on real-universe station ownership, which has been pretty widely announced and discussed, but that's not a short road.
We are of course working on real-universe station ownership, which has been pretty widely announced and discussed, but that's not a short road.
I didn't like the personal station in pocket verse idea. It is completely out of context with the RP, and I agree that it is *magical*. Devs can implement lots of better stuff on their time than that.
Seriously, complaints about *magical*? It's an uncharted part of the system that your avatar has discovered and set up shop in. Or are we now claiming that every star system is in reality a 16 by 16 grid? When I say pocket sector, all I mean is somewhere other players do not have access to, what with space being vast and all that.
As for the single-player fuzzy thing, I... yeah, I understand that. It's not intended to be permanently segregated from the universe at large, but it is intended to provide a place for your character to bug out to. In the long term, these sectors could be linked up to the main grid or even to each other...
As for the single-player fuzzy thing, I... yeah, I understand that. It's not intended to be permanently segregated from the universe at large, but it is intended to provide a place for your character to bug out to. In the long term, these sectors could be linked up to the main grid or even to each other...
It's magic because other people are magically blocked from going there. Not because it's hidden really well or difficult to access, but because it is literally impossible for them to get there, ergo magic. Things like that are not appropriate in a game like this one.
Do you understand the metaphor "needle in a haystack"?
If we made it an actual needle in a haystack, so to speak, they would find the needle. And then raid it.