These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#161 - 2015-10-01 04:29:54 UTC
Kenrailae wrote:
EDIT: Ah.... so how do you suggest keeping passive training if you want nothing to train?
I don't want to keep passive training either. You mentioned an XP grind system, and I was worried you thought I meant to get rid of the passive training and replace it with an active one. So again, when I say I want to remove SP I don't just mean I want to remove the SP training system, or any other single aspect of it. I want the whole thing gone.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.
How many of EVE's big moments had you sitting back going "Wow, I bet a lot of SP went into making that happen!"

When people worry about what SP removal would bring, what are their concerns? Cyno alts, gank alts, and having somebody multi-box their way to riches. Those things already happen, just with a weeks/months long gap between creation and implementation (assuming the characters aren't just purchased outright).

I agree with the OP; the game would change, but it wouldn't break.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2015-10-01 04:45:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Aerasia wrote:
How many of EVE's big moments had you sitting back going "Wow, I bet a lot of SP went into making that happen!"
Are you trying to argue against your point, or was that just an accident. Basically the fact that those moments happen is as clear proof as any that the skill system isn't the detriment you suggest.

Aerasia wrote:
When people worry about what SP removal would bring, what are their concerns? Cyno alts, gank alts, and having somebody multi-box their way to riches. Those things already happen, just with a weeks/months long gap between creation and implementation (assuming the characters aren't just purchased outright).

I agree with the OP; the game would change, but it wouldn't break.
So wait, having a gap of months/years between the creation of a character and that character fulfilling it's designated role (which is still maintained when characters are bought since someone has to train them), which can only be done by one character per account unless paying effectively twice for the sub, is not notably more of a deterrent to alt proliferation than having 3 perfect characters per account instantly?

Seriously?

And this is on top of those alt now being perfect in that role? Something those "few months" characters never had but for the simplest of roles? You don't believe anyone would abuse this to the maximum extent reasonably allowed? I would. I so very much would. Even as a player of 5 years the level of capability I would have across characters would be unrecognizable in scope from where I am now.
Kenrailae
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2015-10-01 12:50:19 UTC
Well, as I've said and others before me: This is not the game for you.


Contract me your stuff before you leave.


CCP has maintained the decision to keep the skill queue, and will continue to do so. Adapt. Or don't.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#164 - 2015-10-01 14:09:19 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Are you trying to argue against your point, or was that just an accident. Basically the fact that those moments happen is as clear proof as any that the skill system isn't the detriment you suggest.
The point being that the SP system acts in parallel to the good parts of EVE, without contributing to them. It's a detriment because that's what it's designed to be. The only positive (if you can call it that) is that people can subscribe for a few years, and then take pride in telling new players "Oh, you think having to wait three weeks to get your skills in order is bad? My next train is 42 days!".
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2015-10-01 15:00:25 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Are you trying to argue against your point, or was that just an accident. Basically the fact that those moments happen is as clear proof as any that the skill system isn't the detriment you suggest.
The point being that the SP system acts in parallel to the good parts of EVE, without contributing to them. It's a detriment because that's what it's designed to be. The only positive (if you can call it that) is that people can subscribe for a few years, and then take pride in telling new players "Oh, you think having to wait three weeks to get your skills in order is bad? My next train is 42 days!".


The SP structure makes a player who isn't going to run many multiple account actually choose something to do and work towards it.

If everyone had perfect skills then everyone would mine perfectly, refine perfectly, shoot perfectly, fly every ship perfectly (from an SP point of view) etc etc etc. There would be no way to outperform any other pilot in any of the industry tasks, the market would be flooded with goods since anyone can produce them perfectly. Invention would be pointless as it is now a simple task that anyone can do.

Welcome to World of Spaceships where you just removed the heart and soul of the game (character creation, just like in any old school RPG). The mechanics of the game would work the same, the things that distinguish EvE from other games would evaporate overnight.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#166 - 2015-10-01 15:21:19 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
There would be no way to outperform any other pilot in any of the industry tasks, the market would be flooded with goods since anyone can produce them perfectly. Invention would be pointless as it is now a simple task that anyone can do.
This stuff already happens. There's just an arbitrarily defined X month wait between you and being able to get into Industry.

The fact you built a skill plan in EveMon six months ago isn't the heart and soul of EVE. You don't have to settle for being your SP total, or your mastery certificates. Build your character around what you do in the game, not what your skills tell you your character is and isn't allowed to do.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2015-10-01 15:27:56 UTC
There seems to be some problems correlating simple ideas.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.

Recruiting a bunch of players to the game where they must train for 1/3 of their sub, minimum for some playstyles like cruisers, is asking a bit much. This is talking about really low effectiveness for not even one role.. just one ship. YT channels like EveIsEasy train for much more for a single ship (for their starter characters), and those are just frigates. Even with the 400k starter SP -- those videos train about 1M SP before even PvPing.

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.

If the cap is empty, the ship is non-responsive. This is one of those simple ideas.

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.

Again, 7d just to sit in a mining barge, with no other options, is an example of ludicrous. They're paying to play the game, and if they can't, they'll probably unsub.

"The previous bold is relevant here as well. Horizons are fantasy. Fantasy is motivation.. which is initiative.. which is content."

How does this not make sense? If you don't know anything about motivation, maybe it'd be best reading up or asking questions before trying to undermine a point's potential. PS, options are gameplay. Does reducing gameplay not negatively effect motivation for the exploration of that locked content? How much more if what's eventually unlocked is of low effectiveness? It's counter-productive, limiting motivation.

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

It takes very little to realize that the game's designed around lvl V skills.. just a simple check in EFT for how much better t2 fittings are. The very Opportunities experience has a window about training skills that says, "You should always be training. Skills influence how effective you are at almost any activity and learning new skills will give you access to new ships, modules, and activities." Then, all that's required is opening ISIS and hovering over a more advanced ship class for how much you won't be playing the game, per se. What comes with that, for example, is getting out of a Velator for a Tristan (provided by the game) with the inability of even launching 5 drones for almost 1/4 of their sub.

They eventually find that they can't compete with hub industry, so if they're interested in PvP, they figure they can't enjoy a very prevalent niche of the game. That's objectionable, with what should be a sandbox experience (the game's main feature). It's pretty obvious that the game would benefit from fresh subs not objecting to the experience and to the sub's value.

"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.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2015-10-01 15:32:45 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
There would be no way to outperform any other pilot in any of the industry tasks, the market would be flooded with goods since anyone can produce them perfectly. Invention would be pointless as it is now a simple task that anyone can do.
This stuff already happens. There's just an arbitrarily defined X month wait between you and being able to get into Industry.

The fact you built a skill plan in EveMon six months ago isn't the heart and soul of EVE. You don't have to settle for being your SP total, or your mastery certificates. Build your character around what you do in the game, not what your skills tell you your character is and isn't allowed to do.


I do exactly that and also train into other areas whilst I enjoy the segment of EvE I just opened up. And the building of a character is the heart and soul of a character based game. Take that out and you are left with standard empty game mechanics.

I can build a large number of tech II and tech III items and ships, mine efficiently, invent, explore, salvage and fight pretty well based on the skills I have chosen to learn. This in turn gives me an advantage over those who have not trained these skills but only for as long as the other characters take to train the same skills.

It gives an advantage I can use assuming I use my skills well, but at the same time does not stop someone else developing and utilizing the same skills. At this point conflict is created as I am now in greater competition with others. This cycle is the heart of EvE.

It sounds like you don't want EvE but rather a different game that looks like EvE but has none of the underlying depth.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#169 - 2015-10-01 16:01:42 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Are you trying to argue against your point, or was that just an accident. Basically the fact that those moments happen is as clear proof as any that the skill system isn't the detriment you suggest.
The point being that the SP system acts in parallel to the good parts of EVE, without contributing to them. It's a detriment because that's what it's designed to be. The only positive (if you can call it that) is that people can subscribe for a few years, and then take pride in telling new players "Oh, you think having to wait three weeks to get your skills in order is bad? My next train is 42 days!".



These same vets were new players at one time. They went through the same process. New players are not doing anything that hasn't been done before. The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like. I am not into mindless twitch based shooters for example. Can have the most awesome and pretty E-3 trailer in the history of E3....and I will go it not me and its not getting my money. Am I asking their devs to change that to suit me? No. I find another game that makes me happy. I am not their target audience, we move on from there.


Something kept you here in the grind years if a longer term player (cba to e-stalk today). Or is keeping you and others like you in the grind phase. Its doing something right it seems to keep you all posting this stuff weekly.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2015-10-01 16:21:52 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like.

Is it really that successful?

Getting friends in the game, with sustain, is better than gameplay. "It is better to give than to receive." Maybe the (frankly, unfounded) negatives of this discussion could benefit from that idea. There can always be more gameplay with more subs and options and initiative and value. There can't always be less with fewer.

"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
#171 - 2015-10-01 16:26:59 UTC
Dror wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like.

Is it really that successful?

Getting friends in the game, with sustain, is better than gameplay. "It is better to give than to receive." Maybe the (frankly, unfounded) negatives of this discussion could benefit from that idea. There can always be more gameplay with more subs and options and initiative and value. There can't always be less with fewer.



the problem with log-in numbers is that it doesn't actually show how many subs there are. I have 4 accounts 3 haven't log in for over 2 months for more than 5 mins
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2015-10-01 16:36:27 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
Dror wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like.

Is it really that successful?

Getting friends in the game, with sustain, is better than gameplay. "It is better to give than to receive." Maybe the (frankly, unfounded) negatives of this discussion could benefit from that idea. There can always be more gameplay with more subs and options and initiative and value. There can't always be less with fewer.



the problem with log-in numbers is that it doesn't actually show how many subs there are. I have 4 accounts 3 haven't log in for over 2 months for more than 5 mins

That's not 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.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2015-10-01 19:25:18 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:
Something kept you here in the grind years if a longer term player.

10 year anniversary this Dec, I believe.

Just about to hit 15M SP. I should just about be at the point I wanted to be when I started EVE just in time for the anniversary actually.

Go me. Lol
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2015-10-01 20:18:58 UTC
Dror wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Dror wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like.

Is it really that successful?

Getting friends in the game, with sustain, is better than gameplay. "It is better to give than to receive." Maybe the (frankly, unfounded) negatives of this discussion could benefit from that idea. There can always be more gameplay with more subs and options and initiative and value. There can't always be less with fewer.



the problem with log-in numbers is that it doesn't actually show how many subs there are. I have 4 accounts 3 haven't log in for over 2 months for more than 5 mins

That's not content.

Which is irrelevant, people with accounts/alts for dedicated purposes will log them in as desired by them. Individual players need have no inclination to go out of their way because :content:.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2015-10-01 20:25:04 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Individual players need have no inclination to go out of their way because :content:.

Non-sequitur.

"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
#176 - 2015-10-01 20:44:45 UTC
Dror wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of players to the game where they must train for 1/3 of their sub, minimum for some playstyles like cruisers, is asking a bit much. This is talking about really low effectiveness for not even one role.. just one ship. YT channels like EveIsEasy train for much more for a single ship (for their starter characters), and those are just frigates. Even with the 400k starter SP -- those videos train about 1M SP before even PvPing.A player only needs to train for a day to get into a cruiser from a fresh character. Also no, that's not one ship, it's 4. And while some are training for certain skills others are having new players join them immediately. When some find players useful instantly we clearly have proof that these supposed barriers only exist where players create them.

If the cap is empty, the ship is non-responsive. This is one of those simple ideas.This won't prevent ships from having empty caps, becoming unresponsive, so that's a non argument. The issue with cap is cap management, without which no amount of SP will make a difference.

Again, 7d just to sit in a mining barge, with no other options, is an example of ludicrous. They're paying to play the game, and if they can't, they'll probably unsub.Good thing the venture exists as another option making this premise wholly false.

"The previous bold is relevant here as well. Horizons are fantasy. Fantasy is motivation.. which is initiative.. which is content."

How does this not make sense? If you don't know anything about motivation, maybe it'd be best reading up or asking questions before trying to undermine a point's potential. PS, options are gameplay. Does reducing gameplay not negatively effect motivation for the exploration of that locked content? How much more if what's eventually unlocked is of low effectiveness? It's counter-productive, limiting motivation.It doesn't make sense because it's throwing random words together as if the have some intrinsically related meaning. These don't. At best you've related the unobtainable (horizons) with fantasy and motivation, which, realistically has no meaning. Motivation is individually determined. And even if these words did directly relate as concepts, guess what removing training removes? One of many horizons or goals to work towards. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the reason character improvement is such a mainstay in gaming is that players want to feel an increase in power, ability and options for their invested gameplay. Ironically this "horizon" is what you are arguing against.

It takes very little to realize that the game's designed around lvl V skills.. just a simple check in EFT for how much better t2 fittings are. The very Opportunities experience has a window about training skills that says, "You should always be training. Skills influence how effective you are at almost any activity and learning new skills will give you access to new ships, modules, and activities." Then, all that's required is opening ISIS and hovering over a more advanced ship class for how much you won't be playing the game, per se. What comes with that, for example, is getting out of a Velator for a Tristan (provided by the game) with the inability of even launching 5 drones for almost 1/4 of their sub.

They eventually find that they can't compete with hub industry, so if they're interested in PvP, they figure they can't enjoy a very prevalent niche of the game. That's objectionable, with what should be a sandbox experience (the game's main feature). It's pretty obvious that the game would benefit from fresh subs not objecting to the experience and to the sub's value.This is wholly misleading. You've again related raw performance to effectiveness. Even in the case you pointed out earlier there were 1m SP PvP characters created by players with a known subset of skills they wanted. New players don't even have that concept. Old players feeling competitive with veterans within a couple of weeks underscores the advantage of game knowledge and the inability of SP to fill that gap. Which means no amount of gifted raw stats will put those new players on par or make them competitive. If they have to be at the top of the heap from the start, their just in the wrong game to begin with.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2015-10-01 20:46:12 UTC
Dror wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Individual players need have no inclination to go out of their way because :content:.

Non-sequitur.

Explain how so. Keeping in mind you stated that a player not loging in is not content in response to the question of active logins vs actual sub count.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#178 - 2015-10-01 20:47:53 UTC
Dror wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
Dror wrote:
Zan Shiro wrote:
The system works.

Fact people like you are still playing yet whine about this shows this.

Not even sure if this thread or another one...so will restate these always revolve around but my friend didn't like eve so eve has to change.

Thats your friend's tastes. We all have them. They don't like the game because of SP, moved on, well then I hope they find a game they like.

Is it really that successful?

Getting friends in the game, with sustain, is better than gameplay. "It is better to give than to receive." Maybe the (frankly, unfounded) negatives of this discussion could benefit from that idea. There can always be more gameplay with more subs and options and initiative and value. There can't always be less with fewer.



the problem with log-in numbers is that it doesn't actually show how many subs there are. I have 4 accounts 3 haven't log in for over 2 months for more than 5 mins

That's not content.



And that matters how? also the 3 different POS the accounts run is content.
Delegate
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2015-10-02 00:32:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Delegate
Let me share my perspective on this.

I am not a high SP veteran. I came to EVE with a specific goal: to fly stealth bombers. First 2 months were a bit rough, mainly because it takes several weeks to board a reasonably fit bomber. At some point during that time I went as far as inserting a mining frigate, so I could take venture to a wormhole and see what will happen Smile Nevertheless, I knew it will take some weeks to fly a bomber, I accepted it and persevered. Afterward things went much more smooth. I could fly the ship I wanted to fly. While flying it I could set a new goal for my EVE carrier, load the skill queue and enjoy the progress. So I near-maxed my missile support, because that was my goal. Did few cruisers to V and some gunnery, so I could fly Stratios and Proteus. Then went for near-max drones. I knew what I want to achieve in the medium term and had no restraints to remap (including bonus). Soon, a pair of +3 or +4 in the pod wasn't a big concern to me, as making this kind of ISK really isn't that hard. As I look at my char right now, more than 20% of the skills I inserted are at level V. Perhaps it's not the most efficient way of developing a (not vet) toon, but it lets me do the things I want to do well. Gives me a sense of achievement, that I enjoy. I'm in no hurry in EVE. As long as I have a goal in the game, a 40+ days skill isn't going stop me. On the contrary.
I'm perfectly fine with the skills, attribute remaps and learning implants. Its a well designed mechanics.

EVE caters to players with certain mindset. They are the faithful customers. And it would be very easy to antagonize your current player base. Disrupting the skill system would certainly do that. The game would become yet another stay-for-a-week-then-forget-it crap. And there is plenty of competition in that league. Maybe I would board some bling dread for few days, but then I know I would be like: F*ck it, there is nothing to achieve here.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-10-02 00:41:00 UTC
There's an obvious problem:

What's the counter to how SP, as an extrinsic motivation, is detrimental to creativity and initiative? .. Especially since it limits the intrinsic motivations of flying great ships effectively?

"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.