These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#141 - 2015-09-30 20:49:55 UTC
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Have you EVER.

ONCE.

In your entire life....

Played a game that had NO PROGRESSION?
I know the answer to this is just "yes", but I'm so very tempted to see if I can break the character limit filling out the complete list.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#142 - 2015-09-30 20:52:06 UTC
Skills are necessary. End of story.


Why? Because every MMO ever has them? Because they help you learn what is what and how it does things as you progress from cheap and 'carefree' to expensive and 'super serious'? Because without them there would be no advantage to playing and keeping a character, as soon as you did something with a character in which there would be consequences you could just make a new one and ta-da, fresh slate? Because skills help focus and direct players efforts, make them choose what to spend time on? Because skills, and the lack thereof, have shaped and made everything the way it is today, from everything from starter corps and Eve-uni to 'leet PVP' groups?

Pick a reason. Pick one I didn't list. That list goes on and on and on and on. At the core, the answer comes back to because that's the way the game is designed. CCP has chosen to add and remove skills as they see fit, yet they see fit to retain the skill queue model, unique from every other large scale MMO.


Skills are necessary. EoS.



P.S. Dror is notorious for not answering the question but dodging it with more questions and partial references. Be careful with that one, your intelligence will suffer just trying to follow what he's saying as he does a figurative roller coaster across everything and it's brother to avoid actually staying on the topic and reading what you actually write, not just what he wants you to write. Best off ignoring his existence.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2015-09-30 20:53:02 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Leto Aramaus wrote:
Have you EVER.

ONCE.

In your entire life....

Played a game that had NO PROGRESSION?
I know the answer to this is just "yes", but I'm so very tempted to see if I can break the character limit filling out the complete list.



Oh?

Please do.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#144 - 2015-09-30 21:24:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.

Isn't the point finding out if non-gated (sandbox) games can find success? So, just finding sandbox games that would have gating evidences nothing. There're plausibly few games with the industry production and flow of this game though. Single player games, yes -- games like X or one of the other space games with money as the only progression method -- those are fine.

If there are no obvious negatives and plenty of obvious benefits..

Kenrailae wrote:
Skills are necessary. End of story.


Why? Because every MMO ever has them? Fallacy: appeal on tradition. Because they help you learn what is what and how it does things as you progress from cheap and 'carefree' to expensive and 'super serious'? If the implication is that the skillpoint system shows how to play the game, that's obviously inaccurate. If this is just saying, though, that it sets up a flow of learning, getting ISK can and does already do that; and there's no honest reason to artificially limit the learning process. The list of why is pretty thorough, but one example is that the spreadsheet stigma of zoomed out gameplay can't be well-evidenced as anything better without direct experience.. that includes of larger ships and those that would be found on the field. Because without them there would be no advantage to playing and keeping a character, as soon as you did something with a character in which there would be consequences you could just make a new one and ta-da, fresh slate? The only thing this seems to effect, on a quick check, is sec status / rep, which could effect the whole account instead. Because skills help focus and direct players efforts, make them choose what to spend time on? Because skills, and the lack thereof, have shaped and made everything the way it is today, from everything from starter corps and Eve-uni to 'leet PVP' groups? It's less than obvious how SP "sets up corporations and elite PvP groups". Learning is inherent with gameplay -- and socialization with a sandbox MMO. There are more options for all of these without SP, because the arbitrary, entry non-gameplay is a deterrant for that learning process and that evidencing of the game as more than a zoomed out spreadsheet.

"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
#145 - 2015-09-30 21:45:11 UTC
Dror wrote:
Isn't the point finding out if non-gated (sandbox) games can find success?
Yes, which is why the evidence to support the idea should be presented and defended rather than simply assumed. Until you do that your statement about other sandbox games is pointless.

Dror wrote:
So, just finding sandbox games that would have gating evidences nothing. There're plausibly few games with the industry production and flow of this game though. Single player games, yes -- games like X or one of the other space games with money as the only progression method -- those are fine.

If there are no obvious negatives and plenty of obvious benefits..
Single player sandboxes are very different beasts than multiplayer sandboxes. For instance, a single player game cannot create choices to scale a character which are given meaning by being compared to the choices other characters in the same game make. By looking at the differences between the games we've already found a justification for skills by their absence in games of a different nature.

Also no, there are no obvious benefits because the only difference between EvE with and without skills is a flat performance potential. Everyone having access to everything at peak performance doesn't actually benefit anyone comparatively.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#146 - 2015-09-30 22:57:37 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dror wrote:
Isn't the point finding out if non-gated (sandbox) games can find success?
Yes, which is why the evidence to support the idea should be presented and defended rather than simply assumed. Until you do that your statement about other sandbox games is pointless.

It's replying to a completely vague "challenge". "Do other games have no gating mechanic?" The answer is yes. "Would EVE be more fun if a player could sub, drop a few hundred on PLEX, then fly HACs, Marauders, and capitals?" That's already possible with the character bazaar. "Would it be more fun if every character had the same stats?" The stats that ships are designed for? Vs. what, stifling gameplay options?

Also no, there are no obvious benefits because the only difference between EvE with and without skills is a flat performance potential. Everyone having access to everything at peak performance doesn't actually benefit anyone comparatively. Benefits are listed and include freedom, exploring niches without the inherent negativity of missing out on experiences and productivity and fantasy, learning the game enough to make a decision on its entertainment value without being underwhelmed by immediate limitations, the option of recruiting subs more effectively because of that more interesting learning style, the development of skill more efficiently because of proper ship responsiveness..

The fanfest video states that great piloting is helpful for retention, that the best EVE characters sub. The obvious question, then, is what the most direct path of greatness is.

"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
#147 - 2015-09-30 23:23:09 UTC
Dror wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dror wrote:
Isn't the point finding out if non-gated (sandbox) games can find success?
Yes, which is why the evidence to support the idea should be presented and defended rather than simply assumed. Until you do that your statement about other sandbox games is pointless.

It's replying to a completely vague "challenge". "Do other games have no gating mechanic?" The answer is yes. "Would EVE be more fun if a player could sub, drop a few hundred on PLEX, then fly HACs, Marauders, and capitals?" That's already possible with the character bazaar. "Would it be more fun if every character had the same stats?" The stats that ships are designed for? Vs. what, stifling gameplay options?

Also no, there are no obvious benefits because the only difference between EvE with and without skills is a flat performance potential. Everyone having access to everything at peak performance doesn't actually benefit anyone comparatively. Benefits are listed and include freedom, exploring niches without the inherent negativity of missing out on experiences and productivity and fantasy, learning the game enough to make a decision on its entertainment value without being underwhelmed by immediate limitations, the option of recruiting subs more effectively because of that more interesting learning style, the development of skill more efficiently because of proper ship responsiveness..

The fanfest video states that great piloting is helpful for retention, that the best EVE characters sub. The obvious question, then, is what the most direct path of greatness is.
Eve's niche roles tend to only require a small amount of training to enter, though significant SP investment to completely maximize. The freedom is already there. A failure to realize that is on the individual player. Had this been a few years ago there were some roles that were more prohibitive to enter, but that has been largely resolved and is still improving. As such expanding horizons is no longer a benefit of removing training.

Being underwhelmed is largely impossible anyways due to the starting potential available compared to the resources initially granted. Players entering the game already have the ability to expand their abilities well beyond what they can take advantage of. The pace of progress, unless highly specialized, is fine. And even if it is specialized, is also fine for what it grants.

The middle game gets a bit slow skill wise, but that's part of the intended game of strategic skill progression. Thus it's not a problem, but an asset.

Also the linked discussion doesn't say what you claim. It's not referring to having the best skills, but being able to engage in various areas of the game competently. That doesn't come from SP, but understanding of a variety of game mechanics. As such giving out more capabilities and eliminating progression offers no benefit. It doesn't make those players better in the way that counts.

Really, making the most of lesser powered ships, learning the advantages of other tools as you move into them and learning mechanics through understanding what skills do is far more informative and makes better players than having no measure of player progress save a wallet value.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#148 - 2015-09-30 23:35:29 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Please do.
Since you asked so nicely. Twisted

Quick definition: Due to the defence of SP, and the example of COD, I'll be defining "progression system" as one where you do the same thing over and over again until a bar fills up and you get presents. This will also only count for game affecting items; cheevos and cosmetics aren't progression.

Games where something is gained through equipment or some pre-requisite action won't count either. EVE has that through the purchase (and subsequent explosion) of ships and modules, yet this apparently doesn't count as a "progression system". I'll also be including crafting and research/upgrade systems, especially if they are optional or removed from the multiplayer component.

I look forward to the heated denials of the validity of this definition, along with the inevitable callout of the single error you can find in the list. Lol

The obvious stuff:
Football
Futeball
Rugby
Baseball
Basketball
Hockey
Chess
Bridge
Poker
Roulette
Magic: The Gathering
Tag
Paintball
Spin the Bottle

The "no wait, I meant computer games" stuff:
Football
Futeball
Rugby
Baseball
Basketball
Hockey
Chess
Bridge
Poker
Roulette
Magic: The Gathering

The "no wait, I meant games not based on physical games" stuff:
Lode Runner
Centipede
Pong
King's Quest
Mario Bros.
Sonic
Warcraft
Populous
Total Annihilation
Doom
Castlevania
Quake
Street Fighter
Duke
Lemmings
GTA
Mortal Kombat
Full Throttle
Team Fortress
Metroid
Sim City
Tomb Raider
Ground Control
Unreal
Counterstrike
Crusader
Halo
Legend of Zelda
MDK
Oddworld
Sanitarium
Blood
Rainbow Six
Sin
Postal
Nocturne
Thief
Resident Evil
Dungeon Keeper
Wargame
AvP
Mechwarrior
Serious Sam
Hitman
Soldier of Fortune
Splinter Cell
Dawn of War
Beyond Good and Evil
Natural Selection
Farcry
Crysis
Fear
Defcon
Homeworld
Civ
Driver
Mercenaries
Sam & Max
Overlord
Jamestown
World in Conflict
Brutal Legend
Darksiders
The Swapper
Terarria
Frozen Synapse
Walking Dead
MoO
Unmechanical
Kentucky Route Zero
Papers Please
Outlast
Banished
StarCraft
Left 4 Dead
Towerfall
SpaceChem
Amnesia
Max Payne
Skullgirls
Dungeons
Just Cause
Kerbal Space Program
Portal
Don't Starve
Cities

Only ~2,000 characters, but then I was only listing by series instead of full installment titles. I'll chalk that up as a partial win.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#149 - 2015-10-01 00:06:02 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Eve's niche roles tend to only require a small amount of training to enter Purposefully underplaying the truth in order to more effectively present and sustain an argument is a strawman., though significant SP investment to completely maximize Why is maximizing suddenly the discussion after ship responsiveness is mentioned, as if a cap lasting 1/4 it's value is OK?. The freedom is already there. A failure to realize that is on the individual player. This is starting to seem more generalized than valid. Why is it OK limiting effectiveness? Not every demographic is interested in the same niche, but it's plausible that every demographic would like to try every niche. Had this been a few years ago there were some roles that were more prohibitive to enter, but that has been largely resolved and is still improving. As such expanding horizons is no longer a benefit of removing training. The previous bold is relevant here as well. Horizons are fantasy. Fantasy is motivation.. which is initiative.. which is content.

Being underwhelmed is largely impossible anyways due to the starting potential available compared to the resources initially granted. 400k SP vs. 200M+ SP is "starting potential"? That's impossible to be underwhelming? Players entering the game already have the ability to expand their abilities well beyond what they can take advantage of. Now it's just inaccuracy. The ability to learn the game well outperforms SP training. The pace of progress, unless highly specialized, is fine. And even if it is specialized, is also fine for what it grants. Uninteresting skill queues?

The middle game gets a bit slow skill wise, but that's part of the intended game of strategic skill progression. Thus it's not a problem, but an asset. Logical fallacy: appeal on tradition.

Also the linked discussion doesn't say what you claim. It's not referring to having the best skills, but being able to engage in various areas of the game competently That's, actually, exactly what that post is claiming. That doesn't come from SP, but understanding of a variety of game mechanics. ..Which is a great reason why SP is unneccessary. As such giving out more capabilities and eliminating progression offers no benefit. It doesn't make those players better in the way that counts. Stats don't count? For motivation and fantasy, ship / fitting options don't apply? Effectiveness? Recruitment value?

Really, making the most of lesser powered ships, learning the advantages of other tools as you move into them and learning mechanics through understanding what skills do is far more informative and makes better players than having no measure of player progress save a wallet value. That's underestimating the effect of expensive losses. What happens to motivation where "expensive" losses also come with the requirement of flying the same exact ships? How are playstyles found? Then, interest?

"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.

Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#150 - 2015-10-01 00:48:38 UTC
I play EvE because of its long skill, dont have to grind XP style which becuase it is a sandbox leaves room for the SOCIAL experimentation and activity of being part of a group and trying to build something.....that something being a community/tribe base on whatever it is based upon.

My first character in game.....yes i had trouble being new, but i learned so much being in a player corp and then an alliance my first months playing that i have left Flight sims behind, and practically all my other single player games that i used ot love. The strategy and tactics required here are so much more fun, and mind stimulating.....which would not be possible without the Skill que used in this game.

Now as to the other thing...albiet my long term experience makes it biased a little bit.....

I created another character last year.....in 30 days....he trained up into a decent fitted ferox, was doing lv4's....and totaled 928 million isk combined in bounties, LP, loot and salvage.....and without benefit of a single remap, an using only lv2 implants....

so no, removing skills would break this game.....might as well go play Elite or xwing vs tie fighter or X3.....or blow the dust off my dust character......

I argue against removing implants or attributes for these very same reasons.....I have taught new players that have never logged in once to EvE from their first day to copy what i did with this new alt.
It is not impossible.....oh yeah i did what i said above on that new character with an average 2.3 hrs daily play time.....casual can be done.

So all you alts and mains trying to advocate this crap just need to stop....your not content creators.....
you are whiny little 4 yrolds having temper tantrums trapped in adult aged bodies.....in laymen terms your still stupid and have not grown up yet enough to be able to figure things out.....so you are not capable enough to train new players in this game....and your ideas are even worse.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#151 - 2015-10-01 01:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Dror wrote:
Purposefully underplaying the truth in order to more effectively present and sustain an argument is a strawman., Good thing that's not what is being done. The truth is that outside of a few roles with training specifically designated to make them higher specializations, most roles are short trains to enter. Ewar, logistics, industry, combat, hauling, market activity and mining are available to a brand new untrained character. These are facts demonstrable on the skill sheet.

Also I'm pretty sure that's the wrong definition of strawman.


Why is maximizing suddenly the discussion after ship responsiveness is mentioned, as if a cap lasting 1/4 it's value is OK?Because largely that's what the more onerous parts of training do, maximize raw effectiveness. Responsiveness is unaffected and more cap is a benefit to those who make the strategic choice to train it vs those who don't.

This is starting to seem more generalized than valid. Why is it OK limiting effectiveness? Not every demographic is interested in the same niche, but it's plausible that every demographic would like to try every niche.And as stated they can try it save a few professions, and for those that aren't accessible there are comparable initial professions to which those are specializations. So there is no issue.

The previous bold is relevant here as well. Horizons are fantasy. Fantasy is motivation.. which is initiative.. which is content.This statement lacks any real meaning. There isn't really anything to respond to

400k SP vs. 200M+ SP is "starting potential"? That's impossible to be underwhelming?Because those players haven't experienced 200m SP. There is no point of comparison. Compare that to the full expanse of what they don't know and you see those players have more than enough to occupy their full attention

Now it's just inaccuracy. The ability to learn the game well outperforms SP training.So you contend that in the matter of a few days one masters piloting a class of ships for a certain race? Alongside full understanding of all applicable fitting options?

Uninteresting skill queues?No, maximum levels of specialization.

Logical fallacy: appeal on tradition.Now you're just fishing, the skills were related to intent and function, not tradition. There is a difference

That's, actually, exactly what that post is claiming. No, you're claiming that the measure of "best players" is raw performance, while Rise is stating it's those previously identified as professionals, specifically those who know how to competently navigate several aspects of the game. That comes with time, as does SP, but the 2 are not equal and having the latter has no bearing on having the former. Indeed, some vets create new characters just to emphasize the difference.

..Which is a great reason why SP is unneccessary.Non sequitur: The logic doesn't follow that the skill system is bad because capability isn't wholly dependent of it. Rather it's proof that it's functioning fine as an enhancer while not overly limiting what a player can do with understanding of the game.

Stats don't count? For motivation and fantasy, ship / fitting options don't apply? Effectiveness? Recruitment value?For fantasy, no, it's irrelevant. One is an immortal space pod person as much at 400k SP as they are at 200m SP. Motivation? At best irrelevant as the motivating factor of character advancement is wholly removed. For fitting? Functioning as intended. Effectiveness? See above. Recruitment? Non factor. If a group is recruiting a specific skillset the training choices evidence interest, if just looking for a raw SP number for no good reason, you likely don't want that corp.

That's underestimating the effect of expensive losses. What happens to motivation where "expensive" losses also come with the requirement of flying the same exact ships? How are playstyles found? Then, interest?That's a non issue. The majority of the ships in the game are low tier ships that are easily accessible. Further most low tier ship functions are just enhanced but thematically maintained in higher tier ships. Realistically not liking flying a Tristan doesn't make being able to fly an iskur an asset.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#152 - 2015-10-01 01:22:04 UTC
Ok op, now make that list again, just this time filter it to only include mmo's, as the initial claim implied but did not clearly state, though he should have.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#153 - 2015-10-01 02:24:34 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Ok op, now make that list again, just this time filter it to only include mmo's, as the initial claim implied but did not clearly state, though he should have.

Was that implication before or after using Call of Duty in his own example? I'm sad you didn't actually challenge my definition outright. A lot of wasted potential in that comeback. Sad

You're right though. MMOs take a lot of queues from single player RPGs (you'll notice the complete lack of jRPGs on the list as well), and a progression grind is one of the unfortunate carryovers. Racing games have had a similar sickness for a long time, which is why I didn't bother putting any on the list. They at least have the sense sometimes to tie that system to placement (i.e. must have a top 3 finish in X different races to continue to the next bracket) instead of pure repetition.

As for your list I think Planetside 2 is probably the closest to a pure MMO without, as most of it is Pay-to-Skip. Here's hoping EVE becomes the first. Big smile
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#154 - 2015-10-01 02:49:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
Whoops, you're not OP, sorry.







MMO's aren't really designed to exist without a progression tree of any sort, be it grinding or accomplishments or skill queues. Progression exists in them to provide that 'accomplishment' feel. It also exists to separate the 'noobs' from the 'vets.'


There is no gain in removing skill queues/progression trees. The immediate feel good lasts a few months at best then drops off. Progression keeps people coming back. True, some people are push button get bacon types. For those people there are plenty of games out there. This one, however, is not on that list. And over the past 12 years, it has consistently chosen to remain off that list. This game has continuously accepted that it will lose people who want instant gratification or theme park safety, to keep those who are willing to dive in and become part of it.

Call of Duty isn't an MMO, true, but it is an example of how even Non-MMO's rely on progression to keep people playing. That shiny rifle skin, or that Perk, or that kill streak, insert CoD shiny. WoT is another example of that. Not an MMO, but the majority don't keep playing it to play M3 Lee's all day. Progression is a vital part of the structure that keeps people playing.


Do I think there could be some things done to change Progression? Yes. The recent buff to Starting toon's SP value was a huge step in the right direction. Are there still a few silly skills out there? Yes. There is an argument for accelerating/easing progression in some instances, but any argument for removing progression loses its merit when looking at the longer game. People don't come to Eve for Push button Win bacon. Those that do mistakenly quickly leave. Those that stay WANT the challenge and depth and effort required for getting through that progression tree. Based on my experiences, I would feel safe in saying that most the population want it this way over F1'ing an asteroid or NPC 10000 times to get to L5 in 'X.'


At the end of the day, CCP has had 12 years to decide if it wants to be a Push button Win bacon company or not. It has decided not to be. This, combined with a few other key decisions, has created a truly unique game, no, unique world, which you are likely here because of. Suggesting that world change because it's not what figurative you expected, or not convenient, seems hypocritical to me. Rather, adjust to it, overcome it, master it. Then Go out and become one of those stories that brought you here.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#155 - 2015-10-01 03:07:20 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
Call of Duty isn't an MMO, true, but it is an example of how even Non-MMO's rely on progression to keep people playing. That shiny rifle skin, or that Perk, or that kill streak, insert CoD shiny. WoT is another example of that.
I don't want to imply people don't get addicted to the drip-feed "accomplishment" of Skinner box progression. But they also get addicted to heroin. Neither of them are good.

But more importantly, I'm hoping we're not talking past eachother:
Quote:
Based on my experiences, I would feel safe in saying that most the population want it this way over F1'ing an asteroid or NPC 10000 times to get to L5 in 'X.'
I hope so, because I don't want that either. When I say I want to remove the SP system, I don't mean getting rid of the passive training. I mean get rid of SP. No more "Level V", no more "X per rank in Y", no more "I've got X0,000,000 SP!" threads.

An arbitrary time differentiation on player power doesn't "separate the 'noobs' from the 'vets.' ", it just shows who spent more money. Sort out that difference in game. Go fight for something, and work out where you are in the pecking order.

People use "instant gratification" as if it's a pejorative. If playing the game is 'gratification', then yes - I want that instantly. I don't want to be incentivised to dock up. Or to go SkillQueue offline. I want the game to grab me by the hand, and yank me out into space. Don't tell me there are things in the sandbox I'm "not supposed to do" because I'm too new, and haven't earned my right by SP to do that thing. Tell me that what I can do in EVE is entirely up to my own devices, no artificial walls in my way to make sure I don't accidentally do something a vet sees as their personal privilege.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#156 - 2015-10-01 03:24:35 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Here is my opinion at this juncture: EVE would be different, but not broken, and the market for characters would dry up except for people whose skill is in sculpting particularly attractive avatars.

Take, for example, people who participate in industry of one form or another. There are a bunch of skills which act as "soft" barriers to entry into the profession, but the real barriers to entry are the hard barriers of "knowing what the heck you are doing," "planning three months in advance," and "being able to carry out the plan." The knowledge of how to set up processes in-game, model those processes, and include the externalities such as logistics, to generate a profit from the time invested, are the real skills required for doing industry. Skill points in appropriate skills are a trivial impediment.

There's a rule of thumb that you don't even bother trying industry until you have PE5. I figure this is the same kind of "hurry up and wait" scenario as learning skills were back in the day. Why shouldn't a new player be able to participate in industry? They are going to make many mistakes as they learn the ropes: why should they be punished even more with the inability to compete even when they know what they're doing, unless they wait a month or so for PE5 or buy an industrial character?

What about the combat pilot who flies in an alliance? There are currently artificial barriers to entry: "you must have this exact skill set, be able to fly this exact ship and fitting". That pilot also has to know how to not derp their way through a red gate, target the right target, shoot on cue, etc. Skill points in appropriate skills are an impediment.

There's a rule of thumb about training "support skills" such as Engineering, Electronics, yada yada. Would the game really be broken if, instead of simply gifting new characters these skills we took the skills away completely?

With skills gone, the choices of modules for ship fitting come down to fitting capacity, financial capacity, and availability. There are still decisions to be made, but no longer will you end up flying a meta-3 fitted battlecruiser simply because you didn't have the skills to fly a tech-2 fitted navy cruiser yet.

Some people will miss the little reward of "Skill training completed." Perhaps people will feel cheated out of some illusion of "character development" which they have been conned into from playing single-player RPGs for too long. You don't have levels in Quake, but it's still a fun game. You just get better weapons, and harder enemies. EVE is not an RPG, it's a sci-fi simulator attempting to provide the world an Objectivist reality: you are the product of your choices and efforts. You are poor because you are bad.

Why let an outdated paradigm such as character skills get in the way of people discovering just how bad and useless they really are?


Oh gee, IDK, the fact that I could put an extra Ishtar in anomalies and increase my ISK from ratting by 33% would probably not do anything until all the other people realized they could do the same thing and ISK just poured into the in game economy...yeah no problem there at all. Roll

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#157 - 2015-10-01 03:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aerasia wrote:
I hope so, because I don't want that either. When I say I want to remove the SP system, I don't mean getting rid of the passive training. I mean get rid of SP. No more "Level V", no more "X per rank in Y", no more "I've got X0,000,000 SP!" threads.
I'm not sure I understand. What exactly do you want done? You stated you don't want to get rid of passive training, but removed the measurable aspects of the system. What in your vision for training remains?

Or did you mean that you would remove passive training, but not replace it with active leveling?
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#158 - 2015-10-01 03:59:30 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
What in your vision for training remains?
Nothing. No more SP. Imagine an EVE where that entire section of the character sheet is just gone. Use the modules you want, on the ships you want, doing the things you want.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2015-10-01 04:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kenrailae
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Aerasia wrote:
I hope so, because I don't want that either. When I say I want to remove the SP system, I don't mean getting rid of the passive training. I mean get rid of SP. No more "Level V", no more "X per rank in Y", no more "I've got X0,000,000 SP!" threads.
I'm not sure I understand. What exactly do you want done? You stated you don't want to get rid of passive training, but removed the measurable aspects of the system. What in your vision for training remains?



I THINK that post is like, 4 pages back in which he suggests he wants attributes to affect ability in a certain task, not train time, but I'm not sure. Too many Dror posts between here and there.

Seriously, for your own sanity, just ignore that that dude even exists. He will spend a whole thread throwing partial references, false accusations, claims that only make sense to him in his own messed up little world of everything being obvious this and obviously that.



EDIT: Ah.... so how do you suggest keeping passive training if you want nothing to train? That seems pretty contradictory. And also completely opposite the choices CCP has made in how they want their game to be built.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2015-10-01 04:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aerasia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
What in your vision for training remains?
Nothing. No more SP. Imagine an EVE where that entire section of the character sheet is just gone. Use the modules you want, on the ships you want, doing the things you want.
I'd think that if you felt so limited you likely weren't terribly creative with what you had to work with from the beginning. I also wonder what eve would be like with out character investment and the attachment that comes with it through player guided development. Also I wonder the effect perfect alt proliferation rendering any concept of character level consequence wholly irrelevant to the point that the level of detachment we have now is a joke.

Basically a complete lack of character level importance and long term real decision making with a prevalent and meaningful effect for and by each player feels like it would break the game fundamentally.