EVE General Discussion

Some time ago I created a thread asking the community for feedback on what it considered to be 'content'. The results of it were quite surprising with a considerable number of people breaking the mould and saying that pvp was infact not content, ganking was not content but that pve was. This was in line with what CCP define as content as well aka stuff made by devs for your consumption. Everything else is player driven activity.

So a year later and the game is different now, we have different motivations and expectations which leads us to our present dilemma - what activities in game do players do that "create value". Let's attempt a definition of the word value - an activity or asset that continually results in concentrations of player activity around it.

Examples of this could be POSs, siphons or the new citadels. IHUBs in fw space. It could also be more obscure things like fleet mining or bringing a newbro with you to salvage your wrecks. It could be things like manufacturing items for your corp at lower prices than jita to save the group money.

Creating content for its own sake is one thing but just like fast food its cheap and over quickly - value generating activities should be more like planting a crop, the long term benefits outweighing the effort required to create the value bearing content we crave.

What do you feel creates value in the current game? Where do things go right? Where do they go wrong? What new things could be done to make new things worth fighting over?

In the centuries-old tradition of games, and gaming, sequences of actions which propel the player deeper and deeper into more elaborate and intricate sets of actions is the greatest challenge to create, and the mark of the most respected and challenging games. Chief among these, we have to conclude, is chess. However, games such as Risk and Monopoly share that ever-increasing level of complication and intricacy which (we have come to say) immerses the player.

It is said playing is entertainment. However, there are those of us who understand it is much more than that. Ultimately, the brain is the object, and what the brain wants in terms of its appetite. (There are those who haven't bothered to develop their brains to any degree. It's doubtful they'll share this view.) Einstein said about play, "Play is the highest form of research.” Play is exploration and experimentation. It's trial and error with expectations and predictions. It's being correct, and being incorrect.

In the OP is included a word - content. This word has two meanings. One is to be satisfied. To have contentment. The other is more modern and involves what something might contain. Content in video games is a term that doesn't fundamentally apply to the quality of a game. For instance, what is the content of a chess game? You have a board - 8 x 8 square matrix. You have 32 pieces. The rest of the so-called "content" is brought to the table by the players, not only in their brains, or minds, but in their physical ability to stand up to the game. It is surprisingly physically demanding. What's in Risk? There's a map of the world, small items representing armies, and a set of dice - 3 red, 2 white. Though a game of chance, it also requires what players bring to the board themselves for any additional "content."

Computers, when initially introduced to the public, were all about games and it's easy to understand why a considerable portion of the population views computers in terms of gaming. Though, most of the games were identical but for their visual presentations. You aimed a pointer with a joystick and fired an imaginary gun with a button. Gaming of today has its roots in this, and has evolved from it. However, I once played a game called Zork. (At your service!) It was blue screen with white letters. You had to imagine the map and environment. There were no pretty pictures and fancy explosions to titillate the consumers of eye candy. This game "contained" a map, or "world", a "you" to move around in it, and a sequence of imaginary items which might, or might not "do something." I daresay, most gamers as old as myself light up more remembering Zork than they do remembering Donkey Kong.

Those of us who have played this long recall as processors were developed, and games went from 8 bit, to 16 bit, to 32 bit, and then the mighty 64 bit, the so-called "content" had more to do with eye candy than with creating an intricate and demanding game. You pretty much did the same point and shoot, only in a "cooler" looking environment. There are those who call this "content" - the elaboration of graphic representation. However, there are others that ballyhoo such an assertion as the true content of a game has more to do with how it plays, than how it looks and sounds. Immersion to them isn't feeling like you're IN the game, it's the extent to which the mind is occupied in that ancient set of its own appetites.

Modern gamers have this sifted down to a deceptive bare minimum at this point, and caution is advised when accepting the result as "the reality." It's either, player against environment (PvE - which isn't very accurate), or player against player (PvP - which given the nature of data processors doesn't come close to this sort of gaming that chess represents.) Gamers who understand serious gaming with computers understand they're actually playing the programmers, now called "devs" (short for "developers.") They aren't playing an environment so much as playing in an environment trying to solve a puzzle, or problem presented to them by these programmers (who they imagine as sitting back thinking, "Heh. Solve THIS one if you think YOU'RE so smart!") In this sense, what some people call PvE is a truer form of person versus person - player vs. programmer, PvP.)

It is possible to create a condition where two players have the equivalent of Nerf bats where they attempt to beat one another into submission in a "really cool" place where they can feel "immersed". (Spam F1 y'all.) To these people, the bat, the place, the animation and sounds as they pound each other - be it light sabers, auto-cannons, or lasers, are this so-called "content". This is the fabled PvP which has been ascertained by several polls and examinations of other sorts, to comprise roughly 18% of the "gaming" population. However, these terms (by dint of being vocal in social media venues) "content" and "PvP" have been adopted and used as digital drums to pound out the preferences of these players, as though they are the only "true" gamers today. Of course, facts do not bear this out. But, they're there and the gaming industry has spent considerable amounts of capital to create games more suited to this point of view than any other. (Bear in mind in all this, the most successful computer game in gaming history is EA's Madden's Football, not some shoot 'em up game.) This is probably because inventing a truly cogent, and intricate game of quality is one of the most difficult things a person can try to do. It requires abilities for which corporations aren't willing to pay.

So, once again, when you use these terms "content" and "worth" just which camp are you coming from? One camp sees worthy content as something that is intricate and involving intellectually. The other camp wants something cool to pound their buttons to. . . and...you're welcome.

Can you link your older topics in the OP Caleb so we don't have go rummaging for them?

Currently on my phone so can't help you there. Eve-o search function is broken anyway.

@tisiphone: I disagree. I think that is a reductivist point of ciew vecause all labour devalues over time with saturation. I'm looking for new ideas about things people can invest in as activities that drive growth. Fwiw CODE fits this mould as the kills they get cut away stagnant ships and modules from the game as well as drive the manufacturing of new ships to replace them. CODE ironically appreciates the labour value of everyone involved through the killing of freighters and barges. They achieve this as I said through reduction of the saturation of the Labour in question and creating a shortage of commodities.

This isn't news to you or me but other observers might not yet "get it".

Notice how ganks of supers are far less common by relative volume? The saturation of titans abd supers led to their relative value declining so much their pilots unsub.

I think SP is a good aspect of EvE.

People enjoy having a high SP character.. it gives a sense of pride and accomplishment. Many people love having max skills, being able to fly multiple ships with the highest (paper) dps/tank etc.

It also allows high SP characters who have little player skill to match up against low SP characters who have good skill. If I sucked at EvE, had been playing (subbing) for 4 years and had 2 month old players constantly whelp me I would probably find it very unfun and leave.

A 2 month player with great skill can still go head to head with 4 year old awful player and win majority of the time because of good ship vs ship selection, correct engagement range and tactics etc. But that 4 year old player Skill Points can make the 4 year old player win atleast sometimes, which means the 4 year old player continues to enjoy eve.

I know numerous players who love their high SP but are truly terrible at the game. If their was no SP they would lose every engagement, say whats the point and quit.

I would argue that it is SP that contributes to the development and sense of ownership of a character. If all characters are equal whats the point of developing a single one. Why not just biomass everyday and start afresh with a new hairdo..

I was responding to the quote you referenced which said



I disagree with that quote in the context that to acheive the sence of ownership objective we should remove SP.

However to be honest mate.. Im not sure what point you are trying to make...

I gather you want to remove SP and you think for new (fresh) players


However what is your idea to give these new players something to do ? and what will you give to replace the satisfaction of high SP when you remove this SP from High SP players.

Or is your solution remove SP as you think the game will be better for everyone ? If so why and how will it be better..
Because they will instantly be able to fly a carrier after charater creation.. or instantly be able to fly a ship capable of level 4 missions

There's actually more to that quote that gives context:

"One strategy found that giving players more control and ownership of their character increased loyalty. The second strategy showed that gamers who played cooperatively and worked with other gamers in "guilds" built loyalty and social identity."

With this game, characters are benched for other characters and their SP. There's no real feeling of control or freedom for how that single character fulfills the gameplay experience that is this sandbox, especially for newbie characters. Setting that through the next "strategy", more investment in a character that can also be industrious and actually experience the depth of the game (and also from replacing the incessant need for PvP skills with a huge amount of diversity) increases the loyalty to a game.

"Research on loyalty has found that increasing customer retention by as little as 5 percent can increase profits by 25 to 95 percent."

What's the draw for fresh characters? Their expectations of a true sandbox are fulfilled, and they benefit from that really powerful motivation of intrinsic reward, them learning the game and having a relevant role.. and the veterans finding Maslow's self-actualization of showing how to 10v1 in a Raven.. or so.

..in here, giving you some content..