Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Giving newbro's 35mil SP is redonculous.


With 35 Mil you can be comfortably skilled your entire racial line of ships, With 35mil in SP invested in just Ship command alone You could literally fly just about all Sub-caps.

With 35mil SP Levels, One, Two, and Three would be even more boring then they are now. Hell you could easily do Level four missions right off the bat with that amount of SP but you would have tediously grind standings.

With 35mil SP no newbro is going to understand a thing about his ship. Newbro fits would extend out to a ridiculous amount.

I've been playing for like almost three years and I have around 40mil ish SP I think, I don't check it regularly so I have no idea of the actually number but your going to destroy three years of SP for anyone who started playing in 2013.


Newbro imho, need more starting SP, but they do not need 35mil of it. I would say maybe starting out at a cozy 5-6mil with some of the core fitting skills and a racial frigate to IV along with T2 small racial weaponry and spec up to II.


But 35 is a silly.

Is there literally any evidence for this? CoD doesn't promote staying with one game, but each iteration has some 300-700k concurrent on one platform.


This is sort of a non-statement. That's not what's being challenged, as that's a pretty low bar.. unless it's literally implying the game can keep "all" players, of which there's a fanfest keynote showing that some 50% quit after the first month or so.

So here's for defining "all types" of reasons for play:

Arousal

The game stimulates emotions well, though many types of action are underwhelming (mining is an example of such a playstyle).

Challenge ("Many enjoy playing video games to push themselves to a higher level of skill or personal accomplishment.")

This is what SP and many of the mentioned "types of action that are underwhelming" reduce by limiting effectiveness and availability (more on this later).

Competition ("One of the most frequently cited reasons for playing video games was to prove the best skill and reactions. Typically, the idea of competition came form male respondents who spoke of competing for something, like money or a sense of accomplishment.")

Feeling non-competitive thus negatively effects the experience of those valuing competition (and also devalues any initial sub) by undermining learning and emergent gameplay.

Diversion ("Video games are 'something to do'.")

The correlates with the other points, that the value of diversion hinges on the amount and quality of play.

Fantasy ("The allowance of doing things that are extraordinary, like racing, flying, etc.")

There's mention of an example in another post, that finding an empty Nyx in space is nothing for gameplay if the pilot can't get in it and hit the autopilot button, at least. It's pretty inherent with a spaceship game that the fantasy is flying great ships.

Social Interaction ("Social interaction is the main reason many individuals get involved in playing video games initially.")

SP limits the value of fresh characters, which limits their social interaction (getting in a corporation); but it could make the whole game seem like that.

Corps and playstyles are an SP problem, because what's probably a whole week of dedicated training might seem an awful option in play ("undermines learning and emergent gameplay"). Yet fewer subs, and less overall SP, reduces content -- including station markets and sov challenges (n + [1 * SP]) and the very plausibility of "action everywhere" (https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3h3ylh/ccp_has_a_great_plan_for_reinvigorating_eve_that/).

--

Source:
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/John_Sherry/publication/259583577_Video_game_uses_and_gratifications_as_predictors_of_use_and_game_preference/links/54dc196b0cf28d3de65e9fed.pdf

Further reading:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2013/11/27/4-reasons-video-games-are-good-for-your-health-according-to-american-psychological-association/ (also sourced)

--

CS: go.....runs on potatoes. Runs on laptops decent too. Games that do this tend to get good followings. They don't make you upgrade the system every 2 years lol. Or makes laptop owners feel like they have a "beefy" system.

Hell its why I love the hell out of TF2 (surprised you didn't mention that as well,its got some age to it as well). Its one of the few games I can say max power scotty to on a laptop (live off a mac book pro since games a diversion these days and more focused on real use of a computer). Most games I go to video and turn it down not even bothering to get initial FPS readings. Know it will be bad...jsut skip the foreplay and bump down the usual suspects on instinct.

Valve games (lets clump TF2 and CS together now) also has a decent mod following who keep it fresh. And well its valve. when they release games they tend to shatter the gaming industry. Keyword when....cough half life release cycles cough.

Flipside to AAA...and we can predict without fail x-mas time releases of the old standby's. EA says hi here....very loudly in fact. They come out, the old game loses populations, new games get surges. Eventually they release SDK's to let modders go to town...and give the game a longer lease on life. Or there is the one official final cash grab....zombie mod. Since geeks like zombies...gets a few sales. Just once I'd like to see something new here. Anime chick pirate ninjya zombies..geek overload there I predict. Zombies part I'd like to see dropped but well...geeks like em.


MY son for example saw the e3 stuff on plants versus zombies garden warfare 2 (he likes that franchise). Has he unlocked most of the current one? Nope. Is he looking forward to the sequel. Yep. Will he half ass that too? Probably. Will pVZ 1 servers fade after release? I would not be surprised if so.

It's the same reason why in chess your first few hundred games are played with just the pawns and rooks.
If you want to get big with FPS, there's always Planetside. 1,300 people "on grid" with no TIDI, and it's been around in one form or another since 2003.

If you just want venerable FPS, you could point out that Battlefield and COD have been essentially the same game since 2003 as well. When Valve put "2" on 1996's Team Fortress, the biggest change people noticed was that they took away offhand grenades.

Shooters have long histories; they just put numbers after their name instead of releasing updates with hard to pronounce names.

I'll do you one better:

The skill system is a waste of time, and should be outright removed.

Sounds like the OP is a min/max player. This game is certainly not for you if so.

Responses in bold, because that's a lot of rhetorical questions.

Why?
How about those of us that you might call third stretchers then, do we get a boost?
How about players like my son that have all level 5 skills for every sub-cap ship in the game and now wants to train cap ships, do they get a boost?

Hey you married her with that itch buddy. You should have checked under the hood first.

The challenge is how EvE's progression relates with sub trends of EvE, not that progression is interesting.

Yet SP-less gameplay is still about progression, as much as items or characters through PLEX-trading are. The draw is that SP-less progression is positive reinforcement (playing the game rewards stuff), and SP progression is negative reinforcement ("playing" the game gets out of awfulness/nothingness).

Those videos demonstrate that it takes at least two weeks before even a highly skilled vet player is ready to pew in the lowest-tier ships in the game, therefore making the OP's point for them.