These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How would EVE break if we removed skills altogether?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grorious Reader
Mongorian Horde
#121 - 2015-09-30 14:16:35 UTC
Removing skills altogether would flatten the game too much. Like was said before, it wouldn't be an RPG anymore. I do think the game could stand to have a lot of those seemingly arbitrary SP barriers removed though, particularly in the realm of industry and manufacture like the OP said. There are 8 bagillion science skills for no particular reason other than to artificially encourage specialization in an area where flexibility is the difference between long term success and failure. If you're building product X and the market for that suddenly falls on its face because of a change in the meta or a CCP design decision, you better be able to build product Y or you're screwed.

I also think attribute implants should be removed and everyone should just train skills at max speed. CCP already went half way towards this when they removed the "learning" skills a long time ago, because "no brainer" things like that are not actually a choice. They really don't add anything to the game except for occasionally screwing over a newb that didn't know about them.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#122 - 2015-09-30 14:57:10 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
True, but we can infer that SP isn't the primary driver for cancelled subs. Like any MMO, EVE is going to perform exit interviews on people dropping their sub (some in fact making that interview a mandatory pre-req for cancellation).

But we also know it isn't a dominant financial factor because SP is still here.

We technically can't infer anything about cancellation interviews. We don't have that information. What are the probabilities of a sub both finding and picking SP as the problem in that though? At some point, there's little obvious reason why unsubbing seems pertinent, especially for fresh subs. It's just "not what I figured it would be". EVE has a massive advertisement problem, setting up sandbox expectations that it can't fulfill because of SP.

On the other point, that's like saying they aren't discussing it because it's not announced that they are discussing it.

--

@Rivr Luzade,

That post is basically suggesting for potential subs to tailor their interests and fantasies and learning flow (to something they can't even interact with through gameplay), and that's not how motivation functions.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#123 - 2015-09-30 15:19:36 UTC
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
A meta 4 module (one of the properly balanced ones, not jammers or damps or some such. Let's just say guns) is vastly better than a Meta 0 module

.. And Meta 4 modules are both more expensive and more effective than Meta 0.

T2 or faction on the other hand offer an a lot smaller advantage over Meta 4 guns and T2 in particular adds more disadvantages to them in form of worse fitting requirements

T2 guns provide an incredible advantage over T1 with ammo selection and its projection. T2 damage mods, though, have the advantage of reduced fitting requirements.

More SP are only more effective to a certain degree... but this solves itself over time.

If, by "solving itself", this includes a huge amount of subscription money, then sure. Yet If more subs is the idea, devaluing that subscription and that experience and that fantasy and that effectiveness and that status is an awful option.





heat sink 1 takes 30cpu I powergrid
heat sink II takes 30cpu I powergrid
meta heat sinks range from 20cpu to 34 cpu.
ballistic control I 35cpu
ballistic control II 40cpu
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#124 - 2015-09-30 15:25:16 UTC
Dror wrote:
We technically can't infer anything about cancellation interviews. We don't have that information.
You're right, there's a certain fallibility to those forms. I haven't done EVE's recently, but there's usually a free-form field though. And certainly people will quit for multiple reasons. SP might be #2 on everybody's list, but that unfortunately makes it far less visible.

But I've worked with enough sales and marketing people to know that when dollars get involved, things move quickly. I think my favorite example in MMOs is probably the "Real ID" idea Blizzard pushed years ago. You could tell people were quitting, not just because the concept got dropped but there was a "Please come back!" email sent out specifically detailing the issue (which was beautiful and hilarious and I wish I could still find a copy).

If CCP thought that SP was costing them some crazy amount like $10M/month, SP would be gone. No threadnaughts, no crying gifs, no partial measures. It isn't, so while I can't say how big an impact it's having on subs I do know that Shield Flux Coil tiericide is considered a higher priority.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2015-09-30 15:25:50 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
A meta 4 module (one of the properly balanced ones, not jammers or damps or some such. Let's just say guns) is vastly better than a Meta 0 module

.. And Meta 4 modules are both more expensive and more effective than Meta 0.

T2 or faction on the other hand offer an a lot smaller advantage over Meta 4 guns and T2 in particular adds more disadvantages to them in form of worse fitting requirements

T2 guns provide an incredible advantage over T1 with ammo selection and its projection. T2 damage mods, though, have the advantage of reduced fitting requirements.

More SP are only more effective to a certain degree... but this solves itself over time.

If, by "solving itself", this includes a huge amount of subscription money, then sure. Yet If more subs is the idea, devaluing that subscription and that experience and that fantasy and that effectiveness and that status is an awful option.





heat sink 1 takes 30cpu I powergrid
heat sink II takes 30cpu I powergrid
meta heat sinks range from 20cpu to 34 cpu.
ballistic control I 35cpu
ballistic control II 40cpu


The discussion is about Meta 4 vs T2 because they have a similar effectiveness. There's a reply line. This isn't a circus attraction or In and Out. Please keep posts relevant.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#126 - 2015-09-30 15:41:53 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Dror wrote:
We technically can't infer anything about cancellation interviews. We don't have that information.
You're right, there's a certain fallibility to those forms. I haven't done EVE's recently, but there's usually a free-form field though. And certainly people will quit for multiple reasons. SP might be #2 on everybody's list, but that unfortunately makes it far less visible.

But I've worked with enough sales and marketing people to know that when dollars get involved, things move quickly. I think my favorite example in MMOs is probably the "Real ID" idea Blizzard pushed years ago. You could tell people were quitting, not just because the concept got dropped but there was a "Please come back!" email sent out specifically detailing the issue (which was beautiful and hilarious and I wish I could still find a copy).

If CCP thought that SP was costing them some crazy amount like $10M/month, SP would be gone. No threadnaughts, no crying gifs, no partial measures. It isn't, so while I can't say how big an impact it's having on subs I do know that Shield Flux Coil tiericide is considered a higher priority.

CCP has little incentive to update a system that's sustaining subs. There's also no obvious game example supporting the validity of the idea, so why possibly upset the consumer base? Thereof, they've already shown that they're willing to negatively effect subs with the multibox broadcasting nerf, so the idea that they would just take the most business-savvy design is just a generalization.

Then they talk about monetization, so they're obviously interested in more subs; and the best CCP sentiment is probably them explaining to veterans how helpful more subs are (from recruiting friends through increasing amounts of gameplay). That's a great video, and the benefits are clear.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#127 - 2015-09-30 16:38:46 UTC
Dror wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
A meta 4 module (one of the properly balanced ones, not jammers or damps or some such. Let's just say guns) is vastly better than a Meta 0 module

.. And Meta 4 modules are both more expensive and more effective than Meta 0.

T2 or faction on the other hand offer an a lot smaller advantage over Meta 4 guns and T2 in particular adds more disadvantages to them in form of worse fitting requirements

T2 guns provide an incredible advantage over T1 with ammo selection and its projection. T2 damage mods, though, have the advantage of reduced fitting requirements.

More SP are only more effective to a certain degree... but this solves itself over time.

If, by "solving itself", this includes a huge amount of subscription money, then sure. Yet If more subs is the idea, devaluing that subscription and that experience and that fantasy and that effectiveness and that status is an awful option.





heat sink 1 takes 30cpu I powergrid
heat sink II takes 30cpu I powergrid
meta heat sinks range from 20cpu to 34 cpu.
ballistic control I 35cpu
ballistic control II 40cpu


The discussion is about Meta 4 vs T2 because they have a similar effectiveness. There's a reply line. This isn't a circus attraction or In and Out. Please keep posts relevant.



T2 take more skilling to use over meta 4 dmg mods which is why the T2 have that benefit.
and i replied to the right post sorry i didn't write it in and bold it like you did but I'm not going to do that.


Persephone IX
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2015-09-30 17:06:57 UTC
Skills are an integral part of this game, you cannot remove them all, although there are some skill eve can do away with.

Leadership skills and links should be ship specific. If you dont have a role you cannot fit it. Unlock the ship and you get the links.

Jump drive skills can go away. Jumping is hull related. If your ship isnt equipt with a jump drive, thats it. As for range, hull size and role dictate that.

There are way to trim the fat. But you cannot bypass skills.

CCP, Can I Haz My Stuff?
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2015-09-30 17:07:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Lady Rift wrote:
T2 take more skilling to use over meta 4 dmg mods which is why the T2 have that benefit.

Except, there's also that whole design set up through everything else about modules. T2 requires inventions, and the modules are more effective. It's more than just "more SP is more DPS", but that as a main benefit would come back on the criticism that the system is P2W. It's sorta neat having an advantage because of veteran status, but some gaming demographics enjoy paying for and playing a full game's amount of content.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Helia Tranquilis
Confused Bunnies Inc
#130 - 2015-09-30 17:20:17 UTC
The "EVE" could as well be acronym from "Edge versus Everyone" because the whole game is about having and edge over someone else, better ship, better fit, flying better or having better skills which reflects on all the previous. If you take that capability to have an edge in the fight, the game loses it's appeal. Being jealous that bittervets have infinite isk and SP gets you nowhere. Same applies to RL and does that stop you?
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2015-09-30 19:06:03 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thereof, they've already shown that they're willing to negatively effect subs with the multibox broadcasting nerf, so the idea that they would just take the most business-savvy design is just a generalization.
Exactly. I don't doubt that SP costs subs. I just can't build a compelling argument around it because the only data I have is inferred from CCP's actions.

So I stick with the fact that SP is boring, counterproductive design. Lol
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#132 - 2015-09-30 19:17:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
It is boring because people want to do things they are not supposed to and close their eyes and ears tight about things they can do with T1 ships. It is not necessary to fly T2 at all to have fun, but apparently new players do not want to see that, nor do older players by the looks. People need to be made aware of this or this and not about T2 cruisers or BS in the first couple of days/weeks they play.

Besides, judging by this adaptation of the EVE learning cliff where EVE isn't even mentioned and instead replaced with Dwarf Fortress, EVE is by far not the only game with this "issue". Roll As stated before and in other threads: Not the game is the issue, the people playing it are, and increasingly become so with the detrimental changes taking place in society and the game development environment.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#133 - 2015-09-30 19:54:14 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
It is boring..

Then why have it in the game? Industry trends and criticisms effect subs. That's how business and innovation are.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#134 - 2015-09-30 19:57:28 UTC
I didn't want to post again and just bump this thread more, but I have to clear something up...

People who are suggesting the total remove of skills/SP from EVE, please clarify what your vision here is...

Are you suggesting, that after subscribing an account, a brand new character should be able to use ANY and ALL ships and items in the game, with the only requirement being enough ISK to buy something?

Are you also suggesting, since skills would be removed, that all characters have the exact same stats for every ship and item?

Is that what you want for EVE?

The UI update we deserve
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#135 - 2015-09-30 20:05:01 UTC
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
It is boring..
Then why have it in the game? Industry trends and criticisms effect subs. That's how business and innovation are.

Roll If you would not quote how you please, you would also have answered that question in the same quote.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2015-09-30 20:05:51 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Are you suggesting, that after subscribing an account, a brand new character should be able to use ANY and ALL ships and items in the game, with the only requirement being enough ISK to buy something?

Are you also suggesting, since skills would be removed, that all characters have the exact same stats for every ship and item?

Problem?

Inb4 character specialization. There are awards from corps for a niche that the character is playing (because that's what seems interesting). There's no lockout from industry keeping up with demand, except getting the resources and full queues or limited interest. If the market is oversaturated, it becomes uninteresting to min-max the margins for that product, and other niches are explored. More stations with inventory? OK.

More capitals implies more capital fleets meeting randomly? Perfect. More accessibility to capitals produces the necessity to stop alliances from free-farming.

Subs can refer their buddies, which can refer theirs.

Please list any gameplay element that is negated by the idea if it exists. I can only find positives, because abundance is the Grand Design.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#137 - 2015-09-30 20:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Grand Design? How is flooding people into capital grand design?

Besides, as said before, if capital are used just like a BS or a Cruiser, there is nothing special about them at all anymore. Add to that the tedium of moving them and you have gained nothing "grand" nor worthwhile. Not to mention, to me a capital fight or kill is nothing special anymore. It used to be in my early days when I got excited over a tackled carrier or a dead Titan or Super on eve-kill, but it has numbed down to "Meh, just another cap on the KB. Move along".

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Leto Aramaus
Frog Team Four
Of Essence
#138 - 2015-09-30 20:19:23 UTC
Dror wrote:
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Are you suggesting, that after subscribing an account, a brand new character should be able to use ANY and ALL ships and items in the game, with the only requirement being enough ISK to buy something?

Are you also suggesting, since skills would be removed, that all characters have the exact same stats for every ship and item?

Problem?

Inb4 character specialization. There are awards from corps for a niche that the character is playing (because that's what seems interesting). There's no lockout from industry keeping up with demand, except getting the resources and full queues or limited interest. If the market is oversaturated, it becomes uninteresting to min-max the margins for that product, and other niches are explored. More stations with inventory? OK.

More capitals implies more capital fleets meeting randomly? Perfect. More accessibility to capitals produces the necessity to stop alliances from free-farming.

Subs can refer their buddies, which can refer theirs.

Please list any gameplay element that is negated by the idea if it exists. I can only find positives, because abundance is the Grand Design.


Wow. Just wow.
I never expected someone to respond to my question with "Yes, that's what we want for EVE. Problem?"

Are you ******* kidding me???

Let me ask you this now...

Have you EVER.

ONCE.

In your entire life....

Played a game that had NO PROGRESSION?

Seriously name one game that doesn't have leveling up or progression of some kind. Even arcade shooters like COD have unlocks that you get by playing.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that EVE would be more fun if a player could sub, drop a few hundred on plex, and then fly HACs, Marauders, and capitals?

Do you HONESTLY think it would be MORE FUN if every single player had the same stats???

ARE YOU ******* KIDDING ME?

I can't even.

I just can't.

Please, everyone with a brain, stop posting here. Let this thread die. Stop feeding these morons.

The UI update we deserve
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2015-09-30 20:23:18 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Played a game that had NO PROGRESSION?

Seriously name one game that doesn't have leveling up or progression of some kind. Even arcade shooters like COD have unlocks that you get by playing.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that EVE would be more fun if a player could sub, drop a few hundred on plex, and then fly HACs, Marauders, and capitals?

Do you HONESTLY think it would be MORE FUN if every single player had the same stats???

How about listing some sandbox games for relevance. Oh, that's right. Sandbox games have plenty of content, so there's no reason for gating.

No rebuttals on those points, nor negatives listed, btw.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#140 - 2015-09-30 20:42:51 UTC
Dror wrote:
How about listing some sandbox games for relevance. Oh, that's right. Sandbox games have plenty of content, so there's no reason for gating.

No rebuttals on those points, nor negatives listed, btw.
Seems like you dodged your own question.

Go ahead and list some sandbox games. We can then look at how they compare mechanically to EvE and/or whether they simply use other forms of gating to the same effect.