EVE General Discussion

I stand by my statement if have been video gaming since pong was the hot game of the day and i can assure you for precisely the reasons you outline EVE fosters d- bags.

I regret that the time i spent in noob ships went by so fast. i hardly had begun L1s before they were done, same with L2s and L3s are only vaguely remembered not because of playing the game so long but because i flew them for about 3 weeks and then they were gone. I struggled for hours against L4s when i should have stayed longer in L3s but knew no better.

So, what i needed wasnt more SP but someone to tell me to spend more time in L3s and enjoy it because down the line i would regret rushing through L3s.

I regret it so much i run L1 - L3s now just because i never got to know or enjoy them when i was a noob.

Sure, they come flocking, but they're fostered elsewhere. And due to how the game works, those d-bags soon come to realise that they can't play EVE the way they do other games because there are consequences for that kind of attitude. Then they leave, red-faced and trembling with feigned indignantion, the mocking laughter ringing in their ears.

Yes, it hurts player retention, but that's a good thing — let the lesser games keep those kinds of players around.

It's not a viewpoint — it's a matter of historical fact. The forum is shock full of rage-quit posts from the people who, too late, realised that their regular attitude would not cut it in this environment.

Why would anyone agree with that? That's just another reason why it's a good thing that the d-bags in question all eventually leave. Too bad that they can't take the SP-elitist newbie griefers with them, because if there's anything scaring off newbies, it's those fucktards.

The points are:

1. New players are not going to know they've had a boost. So if they still feel dissatisfied they'll still quite. That is, this is not really a solution unless it is made explicitly clear that they have been given a boost. And even then it is not something we know for sure will make a damn bit of difference.

2. You assume that these players all want to fly the same things--i.e. they should all be able to fly a frig with a point and some guns on it. But not everyone starts the game intent on flying a combat ship.

And again, this kind of thing has been done before, and interestingly the game was growing when this "training barrier" was far, far larger. Nobody seems to pay any attention to this, you are all standing around with your heads up your rectums, IMO, chanting this will help with player retention.

Maybe the idea should be to find out why logins and declined and if new player retention is a problem...why. For the longest time it was argued it was ganking...then CCP releases data saying, "No, interesting when people leave the game for good they don't cite that as a reason by and large."

The notion that this will help player retention is based on nothing other than speculation without the slightest bit of data behind it, and the date we do have shows that when this "barrier to fun" or "SP barrier" was higher, wider, whatever...the game was growing.

Here...explain why the game was growing in terms of logged in players, subscriptions, etc. back when we had learning skills and no neural remaps?

1. This isn't about new players knowing they've had a boost. Rather this is about the initial sequence of: Player wants to use basic mod > player obtains mod > player finds they cannot use mod > player obtains skill and can only wait while that skill and prereqs train.

The idea here is to change that to: Player wants to use basic mod > player obtains mod > player fits and uses mod. This is a decidedly more positive experience not reliant on knowing that people didn't have that luxury in the past. And the only way that doesn't encompass every new player is if the don't fit mods.

2. No, I'm not making that assumption, but rather demonstrating a principle with a pair of specific examples. The principle logically extends to basic mods involved in any in space profession.

Beyond that, I'm not claiming that this is a magic bullet that will resolve retention woes, just one of many possible suggestions to improve, even if only slightly, new player experience at some level which should impact retention at the same magnitude. There is no certainty there. But at the same time your argument boils down to you can't be certain it will do anything. That's not even really a counter argument.

So before answering your question, answer this: Why is past growth relevant here if you concede removal of the learning skills was positive despite a greater growth trend beforehand? Further, explain how this idea is actually a negative worth fighting rather than at worse a zero sum effort at no real expense. How is it not worth trying?

Edit: Please note I'm arguing along the lines of what CCP Rise posted regarding revising starting skills rather than the ops vision of giving away character progression. I may have failed my reading check and agree if the objection is to that vision.

Isn't that the point, more options.

I feel the gist of my point is mostly lost because this subject also touches on a broader discussion about the skill's barrier for new players.

I do not contest in any ways the benefits of how-to-fly (as well as how-to-fit) and metagame knowldge over skills development. We are all equal in these areas on learning those.

My point is that as the game grows older, the skill tree increases. As an example, CCP introduced recently the new tactical destroyers. This is tied to a new skill added,requiring destroyers V, and most older players can jump in right away, as they will likely have those already trained.

I believe the time for a new player to get to start learning tactical destroyers today should not be as long as the time older players have spent. I am not talking about making it instantaneous for new players, of course, but if they start with a higher level skill on T1 frigs, say level 4 instead of level 3, they get the perception of a slight leg up toward the shiniest latest technologies.

lets imagine Eve in 10 years, and say a T4 destroyer has been added with 2 new related skills both requiring tactical destroyers 5 and may be a new racial skill too. At that point, it could make sense that new players start with Destroyers level 3 and the related frig tech 1 skill requisite.

My belief is that there should be a slow and steady progression of starting skills, as the general tech level of the game increases with time.

This is a wild exageration today.
But I could see that in XX years if/when most ships are tech 4 or tech 5, then why not?

I suggest you re-read your response to 1.



The only way for this to happen and not limiting them in other ways is to pre-load every new player with the skills for every "basic" mod. All of them. And any prerequisites. And how far does this go? And what is a "basic module" I mean looking at many basic modules we are not talking lots of training time depending on how this is defined.



Well that was the oblique thrust of the OP, and many other people outright making that statement supporting this position.



IDK. Neither does the OP nor does any other poster here. Any poster saying they do know is, IMO, and outright lying knave (or they'd better have something other than, "I think...." or "I feel..."). My guess is it is something else and taking shots in the dark is not only unlikely to help, but might make things worse by directing resources (i.e. Dev time and knowledge) into areas that wont address the reason for the decline.