These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Skill Training BOOSTER
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2014-04-10 16:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Koz Katral
Daichi Yamato wrote:
1) instant gratification types never stick around anyways. i doubt that any faster training scheme will increase player retention. in fact, the opposite is true. so long as their is a goal to be still achieved, ppl are more likely to stay.

2) there is already one for new players. ppl should stop trying to disguise terrible idea's as good for new players. Players wasting skill points early on is not a problem either. a day, a week, a month, is nothing in eve. saying no to this idea is not adding an initial barrier.

3) Yes. Everything else being equal, a person who buys these will perform better than those who dont.

4) After seeing the jita protest, any pay to win idea has more risk of CCP losing revenue as a large amount of players leave with their armies of alts.



1. Of course they don't, but if they could get some of that instant gratification, they probably would - more people to shoot at, sell your stuff to, recruit, scam, whatever is you want to do with them.

2. The one for new players is a drop in the ocean, and really does not offer any kind of meaningful advantage when taken into account of eves time line. As you say, a month of boosting skill training is nothing in eve.

3. Completely wrong, having cruiser 5 doesn't suddenly mean you know how to fly your ship any better, it just means the playing field is leveled and the competition is more even between newer players and the old. Everything else would never be 'equal'. Isk, skill and experience are never going to be level, however all of those things CAN be obtained in an equal way through just playing the game, especially with a skill boost. However bridging an X year skill gap is an impossibility. Someone who bought those skills would just be able to partake faster - they haven't gained access to content that someone who hasn't paid for them cannot. They simply chose to reduce the time required to do so.

4. And that is as much the fault of the player base and its collective inability to see more than 3 feet in front of its self interested face as it is CCP's poor PR and initial implementation of the system.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#22 - 2014-04-10 16:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
1) no they wouldnt stay. eve is a delayed gratification game by its very nature. the time and effort it takes to reach goals is what makes those goals worth while, and gives those items value. making the game easier doesnt just open it to ppl who wouldnt like this game anyway, it devalues various parts of the game as well.

2) yes it should be a drop in the ocean. no one should get that meaningful advantage u seem to want them to. if SP is nothing for u, why do u care so much?

3) Everything else being equal, a player with cruiser 5 has an advantage over someone with cruiser 4.

4) u mean like u?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#23 - 2014-04-10 16:26:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Koz Katral
At no point did I say skill points mean nothing to me, in fact I said exactly the opposite. The only skill points that should matter to you are your own - and if a player feels the need to spend additional money to acquire more of these then they absolutely should. If you have to worry about how many SP other people have, or how many you need to compete with them, its damaging to the player experience and in the long run will create second class citizens.

Quote:

3) Everything else being equal, a player with cruiser 5 has an advantage over someone with cruiser 4


If you had read my previous post properly, you would of clearly seen that 'everything else' will never be equal anywhere but a spreadsheet.

I don't consider myself to be a grammar nazi, but If you want to debate the topic please at least do me the courtesy of avoiding cheap shots utilizing the word 'u'
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2014-04-10 16:29:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Koz Katral wrote:
I really do not understand what peoples problem is with this and why everyone goes 'SHIELDS UP - PAY TO WIN DO NOT WANT'.
Simple: because paying to ignore game mechanics is an inherently bad idea.

There is only one consequence: it means you are allowed to play the game differently just because you pay for it. This is a bad consequence. It doesn't matter how small or large the effect is; the distinction between what one player can do within the realms of the game mechanics and what another player can do within the realms of the game mechanics should always come out as zero. Such distinctions are normally called by a few different, much uglier names: “expoit”, “cheat”, or even “hack”. They are usually not allowed exactly because they create this distinction — they make the game work differently for different players. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean this kind of game-breaking distinction goes away, it only means the game developer is trying to cash in on a truly awful design flaw.

As for your consequences, #1 doesn't exist: the barrier to entry to try a new aspect is already roughly zero, courtesy of the skill mechanics in the game. #2 is self-defeating: this idea benefits older players far more than new ones (in fact, it doesn't benefit new players at all). #3 is incorrect: paying to ignore game mechanics is pay-to-win regardless of how small the game mechanic is that you ignore. #4 is incorrect: introducing P2W will not let the handfull of remaining players make up for the massive loss it will incur. So the only positive consequence is one that the game has already done away with, making the entire idea pointless.

Quote:
At what point does anyone lose?
Everyone loses the instant it becomes possible to skip game mechanics. That's why exploits, cheats, and hacks are things that any sane game developer bans players for, including CCP. Put another way: game developers in general are more willing to lose money than to allow the kind of gameplay differentiation this idea promotes.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2014-04-10 16:31:56 UTC
My usual response in these threads is that the training rate is just fine, the attributes allow meaningful choices as do the implants as and when you can afford them.

The 35 day booster really helped me as I focused on specific training with the boost. New players need to be guided in this but beyond the 1 month boost no changes are required in my opinion I am at ~11.5 mil SP after 6 months, If I had invested all of those into just frig for example I would have a serious tackle and or assault skillset. As it is I chose industry and am already making T2 ships and goods, control towers, fuel blocks etc.

There really is nothing wrong with the current training system.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#26 - 2014-04-10 16:32:28 UTC
Koz Katral wrote:


I don't consider myself to be a grammar ****, but If you want to debate the topic please at least do me the courtesy of avoiding cheap shots utilizing the word 'u'


no. and it could have only been a cheap shot, if u were also making a cheap shot to CCP and the majority of EVE's player base. if u dnt like ur arguments being turned around where appropriate, then dnt use them.

no in reality it wont be equal, but this boost wont just be used by ppl with less experience or pilot skill, it will also be used by those with good experience and pilot skill to give their new alts even moar of a boost. Therefore the argument where all else is equal is valid.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#27 - 2014-04-10 16:37:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Koz Katral
Tippia wrote:
Koz Katral wrote:
I really do not understand what peoples problem is with this and why everyone goes 'SHIELDS UP - PAY TO WIN DO NOT WANT'.
Simple: because paying to ignore game mechanics is an inherently bad idea.

There is only one consequence: it means you are allowed to play the game differently just because you pay for it. This is a bad consequence. It doesn't matter how small or large the effect is; the distinction between what one player can do within the realms of the game mechanics and what another player can do within the realms of the game mechanics should always come out as zero. Such distinctions are normally called by a few different, much uglier names: “expoit”, “cheat”, or even “hack”. They are usually not allowed exactly because they create this distinction — they make the game work differently for different players. Just because you pay for it doesn't mean this kind of game-breaking distinction goes away, it only means the game developer is trying to cash in on a truly awful design flaw.

As for your consequences, #1 doesn't exist: the barrier to entry to try a new aspect is already roughly zero, courtesy of the skill mechanics in the game. #2 is self-defeating: this idea benefits older players far more than new ones (in fact, it doesn't benefit new players at all). #3 is incorrect: paying to ignore game mechanics is pay-to-win regardless of how small the game mechanic is that you ignore. #4 is incorrect: introducing P2W will not let the handfull of remaining players make up for the massive loss it will incur. So the only positive consequence is one that the game has already done away with, making the entire idea pointless.

Quote:
At what point does anyone lose?
Everyone loses the instant it becomes possible to skip game mechanics. That's why exploits, cheats, and hacks are things that any sane game developer bans players for, including CCP. Put another way: game developers in general are more willing to lose money than to allow the kind of gameplay differentiation this idea promotes.




If the barrier to entry to a new aspect is roughly zero, then surely a focused Indy pilot who spent his first 3 months station trading, can just hop into a cov ops, scan down a 6/10 DED site, and then get into his T3 cruiser or hac alternative and run it solo right?....oh.

It is not a hack, exploit or un fair advantage - It is simply allowing players to access content at a pace more tailored to their playstyle. They won't be able to achieve more than someone who doesn't pay for boosted training, they will simply be able to achieve exactly the same thing sooner.



Daichi Yamato wrote:


no. and it could have only been a cheap shot, if u were also making a cheap shot to CCP and the majority of EVE's player base. if u dnt like ur arguments being turned around where appropriate, then dnt use them.

no in reality it wont be equal, but this boost wont just be used by ppl with less experience or pilot skill, it will also be used by those with good experience and pilot skill to give their new alts even moar of a boost. Therefore the argument where all else is equal is valid.


It would only be a shot at the player base if you personally considered yourself to be part of that group. Do you? and I think CCP themselves and most players would admit there is a lot they would of done differently with the implementation of a real money store given the benefit of time - That was more of a statement than an attack.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#28 - 2014-04-10 16:41:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Koz Katral wrote:
If the barrier to entry to a new aspect is roughly zero, then surely a focused Indy pilot who spent his first 3 months station trading, can just hop into a cov ops, scan down a 6/10 DED site, and then get into his T3 cruiser or hac alternative and run it solo right?
If an indy-focused pilot wants to try the exploration aspect of the game, he needs to train a few scanning skills and a frigate skill (which he most likely already has), and the go out an try a few anomalies and 1/10s in highsec. Total time: maybe an hour.

Getting into two radically different, highly specialised ships and going after mid-level content in a highly competitive environment does not constitute “trying a new aspect”. What you're describing is “making a career of” that part of the game. This is exactly the kind of ignorance and false equivalence that makes people incorrectly believe that you need lots of SP to try something out. You don't.

So yes, the barrier of entry is roughly zero.

Quote:
It is not a hack, exploit or un fair advantage
…it just does the exact same thing: establish different rules for you compared to normal gameplay. That's why it's a bad thing and why doing it generally falls under the headings of cheats, hacks, and exploits and why developers prefer to ban players who try to avoid those regular gameplay rules.
Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#29 - 2014-04-10 16:43:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Koz Katral wrote:
If the barrier to entry to a new aspect is roughly zero, then surely a focused Indy pilot who spent his first 3 months station trading, can just hop into a cov ops, scan down a 6/10 DED site, and then get into his T3 cruiser or hac alternative and run it solo right?
If an indy-focused pilot wants to try the exploration aspect of the game, he needs to train a few scanning skills and a frigate skill (which he most likely already has). Total time: maybe an hour.

Getting into two radically different, highly specialised ships and going after mid-level content in a highly competitive environment does not constitute “trying a new aspect”. What you're describing is “making a career of” that part of the game.

So yes, the barrier of entry is roughly zero..



Im not advocating they should be able to reach that point instantly. but you should be able to reach that point faster, and at this point in EVE's lifespan I genuinely think its in the greater community interest for that to be the case.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#30 - 2014-04-10 16:44:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Koz Katral wrote:
Im not advocating they should be able to reach that point instantly. but you should be able to reach that point faster
Why? What's wrong with having to take your time to make a career out of something?

Oh, and if the problem is that things take time, why not just ask that CCP make training faster? Why do you have to tack on this horribly idiotic P2W scheme on top of it, when it solves absolutely nothing and only creates huge issues?
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#31 - 2014-04-10 16:45:19 UTC
Koz Katral wrote:

Im not advocating they should be able to reach that point instantly. but you should be able to reach that point faster, and at this point in EVE's lifespan I genuinely think its in the greater community interest for that to be the case.


as someone said before,

'ask for faster training in general. not a pay2win idea'

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-04-10 16:52:15 UTC
Allowing any means of faster training utterly degrades the time spent by anyone else who actually trained their characters. Allowing people to buy their way into professions others have taken the time to train for and then diluting the amount of isk available to those who put the time in would be completely wrong in my opinion.
Koz Katral
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2014-04-10 16:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Koz Katral
Tippia wrote:
Koz Katral wrote:
Im not advocating they should be able to reach that point instantly. but you should be able to reach that point faster
Why?


A few reasons,

Firstly I remember hearing somewhere (I think it was one of those conference style things where CCP genuinely sends someone to talk about how cool is eve etc etc - unfortunately I can't provide you with a source) that the average length of a players active subscription was around 6 months at a time before moving on. What if after those 6 months, players could spend a month training into a new focused area, and just carry on playing for another 6 without having to burn out and take an extended break from the game? More players, more fun.

again I can't provide you with a source, so it limits the extend that I can defend my point (or in contrast counter it) but I suspect the ratio of genuine new player trial accounts that convert into active subscribers, compared to the ones that just expire is something CCP is always going to be looking for ways of improving, because it makes good business sense - I feel like this is one of those ways. Give more of those trial accounts a sense that they can compete on a grander scale.


The reason I think people should pay PLEX for it, is so that the long term EVE players who have paid for their subscription for years on end, are not suddenly short changed by a skill training revamp that suddenly makes all training faster - devaluing the commitment of those long term customers. In eve right now money DOES buy skill points. This just simply removes the restriction on how many skill points your money can buy.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2014-04-10 17:00:22 UTC
I'm currently able to try every profession other than moon mining and sov stuff...how can skill training not be fast enough already?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2014-04-10 17:02:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Koz Katral wrote:
Firstly I remember hearing somewhere (I think it was one of those conference style things where CCP genuinely sends someone to talk about how cool is eve etc etc - unfortunately I can't provide you with a source) that the average length of a players active subscription was around 6 months at a time before moving on.
You're making the assumption that they move on because they have “only” trained some 10M SP during that period. What makes you think they'd stay around just because they had trained more, when all the actual studies (yes, CCP has indeed looked into this) suggest that it's because they haven't made any social connections and/or simply don't enjoy the sandbox gameplay? They already aren't attached to the game, and you think that by squeezing double the money out of them, they'll be more attached? Ehm… no.

Quote:
Give more of those trial accounts a sense that they can compete on a grander scale.
They already can. See sig. The actual problem with these players has nothing to do with their training speed, but with people who keep lying to them about how they must have huge amounts of SP or high skill levels in order to compete on a grander scale. The very notion that drives this suggestion is the one that is the problem, not the mechanics themselves. The dissemination of the “you must have X to try Y” mentality really is the worst kind of newbie griefing this game has to offer.

Quote:
The reason I think people should pay PLEX for it, is so that the long term EVE players who have paid for their subscription for years on end, are not suddenly short changed by a skill training revamp that suddenly makes all training faster - devaluing the commitment of those long term customers.

You're still devaluing the time they've spent, and at least by doing it universal, you ensure that it's not devalued because of money, nor that it will continue to devalue their remaining time in the game. Any reasonable argument in favour of the P2W method can and must be made in favour of increased training speed, and if they buy those arguments, you can just introduce the faster training without also having to convince people that P2W is a good direction for the game.
Previous page12