Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Unfortunately, you are going to need to show that such a demographic exists, not neccesarily to me, but to CCP. Why would CCP spend their time, effort, and money to add in a feature intended to affect a population that doesn't exist? You're going to need to sell them on this idea of yours by showing them that there is a need and/or want for this feature. I've not seen any piece of literature that shows that such a demographic target for this feature exists, yet you claim that CCP has this information. How can you be so sure? Either you have access to this information, CCP directly told you that they have this information, or you're just going on blind faith that they have this information. This is provided that this information exists in the first place.


As for taking someone's word for it... my profession bridges between Historian and Scientist. Sometimes testimonial proof is all that we'll ever get. However, repeated notices of different testimonials show that there might very likely be a corelation. That's where you come in. Show us some proof of this demographic, and maybe you'll get some support. Right now, I think that this is just an exercise for a debate in a lower level philosophy class. I hope you get an A.

--Gadget

I know they exist, because several years ago I did fit this profile.

For a multitude of reasons, I evolved past it.

I do not pretend to be, and make no claims to be, the average pilot.

That said, I am far from unique, in the context for this idea.
I only suggest that enough fit this profile to be significant.

As to personal motivation, it is too late for this idea to help me, personally.
But, looking back on events, it would have made an enormous difference for the first few years, and would have been likely to reduce if not eliminate the period where I had left the game.
(About 3 years absent ending in 2011)

This replacement ship type would lose to these.
It would be a longer fight than some, considering the market offers far more capable ships as well.

All you did here was specify your opinion of the closest market sourced ships to the idea.

And while you are entitled to this view, equally must it be pointed out that it is no more than an opinion.

The irony I note, is that this caters as much to the perception of the target player as it does to the reality of their circumstances.

They have an opinion that conflicts with yours, on a level that holds a foundation to them just as solid as your own views.

Many of them have surpassed the goals they once held originally, but moved the goalposts for the planned change in play style as they noticed even bigger ships.
The dedication they mistakenly adhere to is fostered by the game's sense of reality. They don't want to waste time playing around when they have a goal for even better play in the future.

They need to be reminded to play.
You, not having this problem perhaps, also should decline to speak on their behalf.
You seem oblivious to their circumstances, in assuming that ships of minimal cost eliminate the need I described.

When you asked about the purpose of spending the dev's time for this, you did not say
Why would I want the devs...

But instead, you wrote:
Why would we want the devs...

If you want to split hairs about who you mean to represent, then please adjust your wording to reflect that.
I believe that many likely share your views, but I would point out that many could also be said to share mine.
We both are entitled to use the pronoun 'we', in my view. Simply respect the existence of 'they', as well.

2. Based off of a past version of my own play habits, once I became familiar with the capabilities of a ship type, I would tend to find it lacking in my perception of needed PvP ability.
I would then set my sights onto the next class of ships, for which I did not know enough to also find lacking.
I tended to set the bar too high for myself, perhaps, which is exactly the reason why a free reminder would have proved invaluable to me, along the terms of what I would have seen as free practice opportunities.

3. Except for the fact that they are not all looking at it the way you are.
Some of them, like my previous play style, are prone to making flawed assumptions on that level.
Hindsight like I have now, allows me to recognize where I should have set down the grind, and done more or less as you described. Buy that cheap ship, go blow things up, etc.
My perceptions, at the time, saw the combined, (if trivial), loss of both ISK and time as reason to not do this. I had the flawed perception that a smart player was intended to keep grinding until they recognized a solid PvP ship.
If I had free replacement ships becoming available, I would have questioned the purpose of these, and tried them to determine what purpose they served.

I think that way, I recognize not everyone thinks like this, but at the same time I would not assume noone else does either.
So a meaningful portion of the playerbase, perhaps a small one, would also benefit from this the same way I would.

Does this help explain the logic better?

Never said I was perfect.

Hindsight, which I can at least fall back on, suggests you are right about that. I should have mentioned sooner that I previously fit into the category to be helped by this.

1. That still amounts to no more than a set of opinions. Popularity does not make something more or less true, so cannot reflect value in this context.

2. I was responding to your point, where you claimed to speak for only yourself. I proceeded to explain how it could seem otherwise, using your own words to illustrate the point.
My reference to splitting hairs defined that argument as something I saw as pointless.

3. Your claim that my defense of this idea has failed, based on my responding to a point you made, assumes too much by understanding too little. The fact that I apparently needed to explain point two above demonstrates this.

4. I am allowed to have an opinion regarding my own idea. You have not hesitated to restate yours, despite being unable to offer more than this opinion.

5. Amended and nerfed?
Again, you assume too much.
This idea was never about more than a set of ships designed to lose fights. It was modeled after NPC ships from missions level 1 to 3, which are well known for usually being solo-able.
The fact that my defining these points and explaining them, to you seemed like nerfing and amending, points out that the original idea had been mistaken for something it never was.

6. The assumption that I expect direct personal gain, in the form of free ships.
Small wonder, that you keep misunderstanding this idea, since you seem to mistakenly assume you understand me.
And through this assumed understanding of me, you think to attribute motivations to me, which in reality do not exist.

No slight intended, if you can believe my words here, but I think your real problem with this idea is that you just don't get it.

You kept looking for reasons that would make YOU approve of this idea, and you only found self serving items which you mistakenly applied to me.

Let's try a small exercise.

Can you tell me what value could be had by sending out a player in a ship, which is characterized by an overwhelming expectation that said ship will lose most fights?

And THAT is why you don't understand this idea, in the same manner as I do.

Here is MY answer to that same question:
The player would be reminded that winning is not everything, and that an interesting match in the game would be worth their time by giving enjoyment through the experience.
In taking this a step further, it could also show that a losing a good fight could even be more interesting than winning an easy one, as well as more satisfying.

In the context of the idea more specifically, the player would possibly learn to let go of the expectation that winning was too important, so avoiding a match because of uncertainty would be the real loss, not so much the ship which might explode.

Having fun, without the expectation that winning is needed, is the true lesson.

I said you do not understand it the way I do. You effectively agreed with it, but you assume that I must be assuming in order to think this.

I feel you are demonstrating a confirmational bias, that seems to reject any view that does not correlate with this idea being bad for the reasons explained by your opinions.
Your opinions, as I understand them:
1. The ships are either effective, and thus competition for market sales.
OR
2. The ships are ineffective, and have no purpose in the game.

You further state, that I must have intended the ships to fit that first effective category, but over time I have diminished them into the second.

I have been, somewhat fruitlessly, trying to convince you that a third category exists, which I feel has significant value for the game.

3. The ships are present for use, but are substandard prefabricated versions which cannot be modified. As a result, their known abilities and limitations are easily countered by pilots.
This is already demonstrated in game, by mission runners who fit for their targets, matching DPS to the target's known defensive weaknesses, and matching defenses to best counter the target's known attack abilities.

The fact you seem disinterested in this idea, and consider it bad, tells me that most of all you would simply avoid it in game.

I think you choose to disbelieve that a play-style could exist where interaction is the primary goal, and winning is not a priority.

More specifically, I think you are unwilling to grasp that someone can play, and not care about winning.

Perhaps the world is right, and I am in agreement with the world.

Or, perhaps you meant to imply you speak for the world, when claiming you did not agree with me?