These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#201 - 2015-10-02 19:38:40 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
...Having to be creative with limited resources is absolutely challenging....

Creativity is based on knowledge. In art, it's lighting, color, and structure. It could be said that art's about fluidity and skillfulness. If there were limitations on color, there would be less art. There would be less learning -- how a color blends and what its composition with other colors is.

Quote:
The only way to grow is to voraciously consume what's around you, and its your choice whether that happens to be New Eden's abundant natural resources, or the other people who're also fighting their way to the top.

Beyond that quote being an Appeal to Authority (fallacy), here's some constructive criticism:

The game and its options can't be voraciously consumed if they're locked.

"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.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#202 - 2015-10-02 20:26:55 UTC
Dror wrote:
Beyond that quote being an Appeal to Authority (fallacy), here's some constructive criticism:

The game and its options can't be voraciously consumed if they're locked.


Did you just call what CCP's own staff said was the intended direction and spirit for the game they made a fallacy?
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#203 - 2015-10-02 20:27:59 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.



Uhhhmmm no, it does not happen now. As I pointed out, without skills, or simply setting them all to 5 I'd have a third afktar out in space while ratting boosting my ratting income by 33%. As it stands now I have to decide to train that alt to do it or something else.

Additionally with all skills set to 5, I'd have 2 more characters who could do invention/manufacturing instead of 4, so a 50% increase there.

If I decided to get into station trading I'd have 7 perfect traders.

Considering that the last 2 activities do not require my alts to all be logged on concurrently, I could use them all.

So, this could be very unbalancing for the in-game economy. To deny this indicates you are being deliberately obtuse.

"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
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2015-10-02 21:20:38 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Dror wrote:
Beyond that quote being an Appeal to Authority (fallacy), here's some constructive criticism:

The game and its options can't be voraciously consumed if they're locked.


Did you just call what CCP's own staff said was the intended direction and spirit for the game they made a fallacy?

How about listing the very forefront of that post?

CCP Falcon wrote:
Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.


Teckos Pech wrote:
Uhhhmmm no, it does not happen now. As I pointed out, without skills, or simply setting them all to 5 I'd have a third afktar out in space while ratting boosting my ratting income by 33%. As it stands now I have to decide to train that alt to do it or something else.

Additionally with all skills set to 5, I'd have 2 more characters who could do invention/manufacturing instead of 4, so a 50% increase there.

If I decided to get into station trading I'd have 7 perfect traders.

Considering that the last 2 activities do not require my alts to all be logged on concurrently, I could use them all.

So, this could be very unbalancing for the in-game economy. To deny this indicates you are being deliberately obtuse.

It's arguable that bounties are so lucrative, because skilling characters is so limiting. With fewer limitations on profession options, other niches open.

As for market production, saying that more is somehow inherently negative is a very shallow examination. Those materials have to come from somewhere, and those products have to go somewhere. If the trend is you making 15 alts to enjoy an unrestricted sandbox experience, that's more content. That whole trend is more undocked ships, and the obvious benefit of an unrestricted sandbox is great advertising.

"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.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#205 - 2015-10-02 22:10:31 UTC
Dror wrote:
Did you just call what CCP's own staff said was the intended direction and spirit for the game they made a fallacy?

How about listing the very forefront of that post?

CCP Falcon wrote:
Okay, so what follows is entirely my personal opinion.


Yeah, imma take a long term CCP dev's opinion over yours any day champ.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2015-10-02 22:16:18 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Yeah, imma take a long term CCP dev's opinion over yours any day champ.

Except, what I'm posting is nothing about opinions, but it's also from CCP.. and scientific research.

For simplicity: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6073567#post6073567

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2015-10-03 00:04:02 UTC
Dror wrote:


Teckos Pech wrote:
Uhhhmmm no, it does not happen now. As I pointed out, without skills, or simply setting them all to 5 I'd have a third afktar out in space while ratting boosting my ratting income by 33%. As it stands now I have to decide to train that alt to do it or something else.

Additionally with all skills set to 5, I'd have 2 more characters who could do invention/manufacturing instead of 4, so a 50% increase there.

If I decided to get into station trading I'd have 7 perfect traders.

Considering that the last 2 activities do not require my alts to all be logged on concurrently, I could use them all.

So, this could be very unbalancing for the in-game economy. To deny this indicates you are being deliberately obtuse.

It's arguable that bounties are so lucrative, because skilling characters is so limiting. With fewer limitations on profession options, other niches open.

As for market production, saying that more is somehow inherently negative is a very shallow examination. Those materials have to come from somewhere, and those products have to go somewhere. If the trend is you making 15 alts to enjoy an unrestricted sandbox experience, that's more content. That whole trend is more undocked ships, and the obvious benefit of an unrestricted sandbox is great advertising.


What? You know Dror you are the epitome of a hammer....to you everything is a nail, or in your case skill points. T3s are too OP and need a balance pass...well obviously, skill points. PLEX prices are "too high" (or not "high enough"), because of skill points. You name it, it has got to be due to skill points. Rat bounties too high ratting leading to too much ISK in the economy, because of skill points.

And I did not say having more is bad, but that it could be unbalancing. For example, if everyone has perfect mining and refining skills what would be the impact on the price of minerals? Up, down? Long term? The point is you are taking a complex dynamic system and making a significant change and then you promise, don't worry it will wonderful. The reality you don't know and your are just spouting bravo sierra.

What we'd have is a sudden and rapid increase in productivity, sounds great, but I urge caution. For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game, at least not with changing skills alone. Those could pose bottle necks in certain things leading to dramatically rising prices in some areas of the game economy and other prices that fall very low. The sudden influx of ISK would, overall, drive all prices higher. Long terms effects, I really have no clue.

"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
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#208 - 2015-10-03 00:07:18 UTC
Dror wrote:
Except, what I'm posting is nothing about opinions, but it's also from CCP.. and scientific research.

For simplicity: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6073567#post6073567


I too link a post by an NPC corp alt while posting with an NPC corp alt when trying to be taken seriously.
Suran Parr
Os Terriveis
#209 - 2015-10-03 00:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Suran Parr
Dror wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Yeah, imma take a long term CCP dev's opinion over yours any day champ.

Except, what I'm posting is nothing about opinions, but it's also from CCP.. and scientific research.

For simplicity: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6073567#post6073567


Love the way you can't even be bothered with the original like you actually have but need to link your own post!

Narcissism aside and your ongoing need to be noticed no matter what your referencing CCPs attitude towards missions and mission related goals at no point is the SP system even mentioned.

I get that you feel special and you want it all now especially because like people who put years in have nice stuff and you don't. I know it makes sense to you to pull the system down an make all those peoples efforts and work worth nothing because they aren't you and you feel you deserve it all now no matter what it does to this game and screw everyone else.

But your wrong, turning this magnificent thing into a pile of steaming instant gratification will just kill it deader than dead.
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#210 - 2015-10-03 00:27:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
Delegate wrote:
Aerasia wrote:
Let's just assume you had been able to fly your Stealth Bomber since day one. Would you still be here?


I wouldn't come to EVE in the first place. It should be obvious to you after reading my post.


Agreed, some things are better for having to work for them.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#211 - 2015-10-03 00:31:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
Double post, apologies.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#212 - 2015-10-03 02:56:42 UTC
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.

Suran Parr wrote:
Referencing CCPs attitude towards missions and mission related goals at no point is the SP system even mentioned.

Here's a quote from the video:

Quote:
A lot of the people that we get, that are new in to the game, are coming for events like B-R. We have some giant sandbox event that makes the news, or even just people are telling their friends about things that happen in the game which are very EVE-y. Then they come in to the game and find a new player experience that doesn't deliver that at all. They come in and actually find something that's a lot more theme park-y. They come to have these emergent, unpredictable, interactive experience; and instead, what they find is this linear, predictable, reward-based, isolated system. There are some things that's good for. It's good for comforting people and kind of providing a space for us to control the experience a lot; but it really doesn't deliver on what people expect when they come in to the game.

The last thing that we can do a lot better is just getting people moved towards rich experiences quicker.

Are you saying that players come to the game for missions and mission related goals? Because a CCP video on improving sub retention seems like its discussing very general ideas that can be improved, even mentioning that there are studies on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation and what those exhibit. I'm pretty sure CCP Rise, and crew, aren't scrolling through motivation studies for improving the NPE missioning experience. Because players don't expect missions when they come in to the game. As quoted, they come for sandbox, non-linear gameplay; and SP limits that.

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#213 - 2015-10-03 05:54:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

"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
Aminari Talar
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#214 - 2015-10-03 09:33:58 UTC
What you need to understand, while you may not recognize it is that the skill system (progression system) is highly important in eve (and other games).

If you remove this system, you will make eve dull, and make each player be able to fly all of the same things. This will become an issue of causing alts to absolutely become spammed and abused.

There is good that would come from this change, like balance of the new player meta, economic stability, etc .... But the bad that comes from a change like this would far far out weigh the good.

As a game developer and player i have always loved eve's skill system (in fact i have a similar concept in my upcoming game).
I have found it to be an innovation to the industry, and if you look at many face book games today, they do a very similar concept (1 skill point every hour you place to research).

The current equation for progression is basically time equals unlock of something new. This excites the player base and helps them want to play the more (improving retention).

It's with out a doubt that if a change like this was done, it would irreversibly destroy the game.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2015-10-03 12:54:17 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

PLEX?

"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
#216 - 2015-10-03 13:26:04 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

PLEX?


I use my focussed skills to outperform others in my chosen areas and thus earn isk to buy plex. My skills give me an advantage that I have tailored by my choices, take away sp and you destroy any effort I have put into those areas. That wouldn't leave me or the rest of the existing player base in the same position pissed off at all.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2015-10-03 13:30:41 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

PLEX?


I use my focussed skills to outperform others in my chosen areas and thus earn isk to buy plex. My skills give me an advantage that I have tailored by my choices, take away sp and you destroy any effort I have put into those areas. That wouldn't leave me or the rest of the existing player base in the same position pissed off at all.

Do you have a point, if SP is a ginormous deterrent for fresh subs?

"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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#218 - 2015-10-04 02:38:39 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

PLEX?


And? There is something else that related much more to the Eve economy than PLEX.

I know alot of people whine about the PLEX price, but that, IMO, is a complete side show by a bunch of no-nothing dimbulbs.

"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
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2015-10-04 05:16:56 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Techos Peck wrote:
For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game

Examples? If it's about a prevalence of larger ships, I could honestly say that I'd be mostly piloting Slicers, Comets, and Stabbers. There's a rush with the game that comes from going fast, and fortunately, these are some of the cheaper fitting options. There is a really nice limitation on T2 and T3 cruisers, from pricing, for a great percentage of play. Some of the best pay beyond nullsec just can't afford 200M - 1B for every fleet. Does that seem like instant gratification? It's gameplay, from industry through more interesting force projection.


No, you engage your brain and think for a few minutes even if it hurts. Seriously, what in game item is not a function of skill for the most part? C'mon you can do it....

PLEX?


And? There is something else that related much more to the Eve economy than PLEX.

I know alot of people whine about the PLEX price, but that, IMO, is a complete side show by a bunch of no-nothing dimbulbs.

If it was supposedly ISK, I'd say that's a ludicrous statement.

@This thread, CCP has mentioned the idea of no skill training, relevant with both the NPE and increasing subs.

"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
#220 - 2015-10-04 06:05:14 UTC
You are comparing apples and oranges. What Rise is talking about is about total loss when you die. You want to keep clones and remove skilling.

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.