These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#281 - 2015-10-06 09:17:23 UTC
It cannot be newbies because new players do not have the money to afford such ships, let alone reshipping several times. Or do you again want to suggest that people should just buy PLEX to get money quick and actually turn this into a Give More Money To CCP thing? It sounds really like a great idea that people can fly a capital or expensive BS right from day one, but then you notice these ships are quite costly and you cannot afford the ship until a couple months into the game ... or you pay even more money in addition to the subscription to CCP in order to have the money. This is the worst reason of all to remove SP. To me, this undermines competence, sandboxiness, and autonomy more than SP requirements for flying things.

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.

Mavros Pete
Doomheim
#282 - 2015-10-06 09:34:37 UTC
Removing Sps isnt really an issue, thats what keeps this game going, if you want to remove something, remove the economy :D Most pple cant be arsed to grind isk. Ofc , thats a joke, you cannot do that.

The boring aspects of eve like making isk determine what you fly and how you play. If you cannot afford it, or cannot grind it, well, you need to rethink your gameplay. Sps define what you can fly in time. The economy defines what you can fly anytime.

Some sps need to go for sure like jump drive skills, those can be determined by hull, if you can fly it, you get the specified range. But sps should remain
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#283 - 2015-10-06 10:00:31 UTC
If it is boring to you, you do something wrong. Simple as that. There are loads of ways to make your ISK generation/income an exciting task. If you do not pursue these venues and opt for "boring" L4 mission running in High sec, it is your fault and the game is in no way to blame for that.

Furthermore, suggesting to remove the economy, the single-most important unique characteristic of the game, is even worse than any suggestion about arenas or removal of SP.

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.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#284 - 2015-10-06 11:42:38 UTC
Dror wrote:

This seems to miss the idea that whatever's trained can get repetitive. Does it really seem unheard of that a sub stops logging in if the game seems predictable? This comes back on the literal whole of the motivation discussion from the NPE videos. It's incredibly more accurate than just for fresh subs -- that's why the video has relevance, saying there's plenty of studies on extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. It scales. It's scientific.

The reward for subbing should be playing...

The reward for subbing *is* playing already. Skills and SP are a part of the game, you make choices that matter to your character, you gain new abilities as you go and you get the satisfaction as each new area of the game opens up. If a game has now goals and no means by which to measure them (for yourself at least) it becomes pointless.

In term of skills stopping players from participating in certain events every player can very quickly fly pirate ships which are often equal to or better than tech II variants. Everyone can very quickly use deadspace modules without meeting tech II requirements. Skills don't stop players from doing these things, if they throw enough money into the game they can buy whatever pirate ship and deadspace modules they like. Tech II skills give a player another option, one that they have worked towards and will feel satisfaction at being able to use.

With regards to gameplay being repetitive it seems that you view anything but PvP as dull and repetitive. Many other players do not. A player absolutely will not keep doing something they do not enjoy, that includes miners, missioners, indy's and PvPers. I know many players who were part of nullsec alliances who left the game because for them it became repetitive. Opening up every ship to them would not have helped as they could already fly every doctrine ship required.

Ignoring the fact that skills are woven through the very fabric of every part of the game (which is blatantly daft) the skill system provides a means by which to progress you character, to tune what you want to do in the game and enjoy the areas that are opened up as you progress.

I'm curious to know which games you play or have played where there is no element of 'leveling' or progression in the game?
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2015-10-06 14:26:01 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:
The reward for subbing should be playing...

The reward for subbing *is* playing already. Skills and SP are a part of the game, you make choices that matter to your character, you gain new abilities as you go and you get the satisfaction as each new area of the game opens up. If a game has now goals and no means by which to measure them (for yourself at least) it becomes pointless.

SP progression isn't gameplay.

"The question of what makes a game fun to play is very similar to the question of what makes a joke funny. The best answer is that something is funny because there's laughter. Similarly, a game is fun to play if it's enjoyed."

There's no logging in, for a great experience, to "play" with the skill queue. It's not engaging; and yes, that is the established definition of the play phenomenon, which also includes finding the activity intrinsically motivating, so that there's no concern about "getting something" out of it.

What you're not providing is research that supports "SP" character progression as relevant.. or motivational. In fact, if there's concern about getting something out of the system, that's extrinsic motivation.. which is being described by CCP as detrimental for creativity and learning -- as well as by basic idea experiments, for the SP system, as negatively impacting the dynamic experience.

"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
#286 - 2015-10-06 14:58:22 UTC
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:
The reward for subbing should be playing...

The reward for subbing *is* playing already. Skills and SP are a part of the game, you make choices that matter to your character, you gain new abilities as you go and you get the satisfaction as each new area of the game opens up. If a game has now goals and no means by which to measure them (for yourself at least) it becomes pointless.

SP progression isn't gameplay.

"The question of what makes a game fun to play is very similar to the question of what makes a joke funny. The best answer is that something is funny because there's laughter. Similarly, a game is fun to play if it's enjoyed."

There's no logging in, for a great experience, to "play" with the skill queue. It's not engaging; and yes, that is the established definition of the play phenomenon, which also includes finding the activity intrinsically motivating, so that there's no concern about "getting something" out of it.

What you're not providing is research that supports "SP" character progression as relevant.. or motivational. In fact, if there's concern about getting something out of the system, that's extrinsic motivation.. which is being described by CCP as detrimental for creativity and learning -- as well as by basic idea experiments, for the SP system, as negatively impacting the dynamic experience.


hmmm, research or not...EvE to me is enjoyable because of the SP/skill que system. I do not have to grind for XP on each and every character to progress, they can passivley increase their abilities instead while im doing something else on another character in the game. Which means I can have a dedicated Research only character, a dedicated combat only(PvP) character, if i wish to roleplay or station trade i can have another maximizing social and trade skills....and on this one well its an indy character...most of his 38 million SP is into production and resource processing skills, the rest split into leadership/fleet management and corp management with combat taking a much smaller 3 rd position.....

In short the SP progression in EvE defines the choices a player makes in streamling what they wish to do so as to maximize options in different careers in a linear specialized direction. I even have a character devoted to nothing but freighters and transports....it takes time to get these skills maxed and makes sense to specialize each character into their respective careers which makes them unique to that player beasue then each one has a different playstyle.

Removing the SP system....might as well go play X3, or battlestar galactica, or Elite dangerous since as a flight sim they would be more exciting than eve with 1 seond ticks at that point.
and making a system where using things grants SP.....well might as well go play starwars or something then as those games were created from the ground up to be like that.

IMHO, the Skill que system in EvE and the way to use it is inherent to its design and taking it away would detract from the game and make it mostly worthless to play.
Because really...EvE is more about the meta-game and what we players build in the game than it is about the game and the mechanics itself....too many worry about this or that and fail to realize that the social aspects and how they affect them or are affected are more important than being "skill trained".
Because "skill trained", sp/attributes/implants are meaningless IF a player is unwilling to learn how to play the game when it comes to EvE....and playing the game means not playing against the pve aspects but competting with other players in one fashion or another in trying to be the best in a particular field.

And that right there is problem with the newbs vs vets argument....newbs say they cant catch up....well they can if they learn how to play...because it is the fact Vets are here to win at whatever they choose to win at and it is their extensive knowledge of the mechanics abuse of them or not that allows to roll stomp newbs/scrubs every time.....not SP...especially total SP...
A newb is born into the game having to figure out the game....and SP is an intrinsically small portion of the knowledge they have to learn...they should never focus on it and see it what truly is....merely one of a myriad of simple tools that allow for the fun in this game.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#287 - 2015-10-06 15:39:38 UTC
I have removed an off-topic post and one quoting it.

Quote:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Leto Aramaus
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#288 - 2015-10-06 15:53:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Leto Aramaus
ISD Decoy wrote:
I have removed an off-topic post and one quoting it.

Quote:
27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


My post wasn't off-topic at all.

I specifically stated an opinion relating to removing skills in EVE.

Also my suggestion to biomass didn't mention the words "in", "real", "life" or the letters "I" "R" or "L" either. So if that's why you removed it, you're silly.

Nazi ISD censoring my opinions. Boo ISD. Boooo.

Here let me re-create the text from my neural logs...

Leto Aramaus wrote:
LoL Dror still trying to convince people that an MMO shouldn't have character progression?

It would be funny if it wasn't taking up a slot on page 1 of F&I, we have such little space with all the stickies.

(Edited:) If you don't like the skill training, EVE probably isn't the game for you. Suggesting we remove all character progression and have no differences in ship stats between characters is insane (IMO).
(Original:) Plz biomass. If you don't like EVE, don't play it.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#289 - 2015-10-06 15:58:41 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This only holds if the T2 mods are wholly superior in every way but prerequisites, offering no advantage to other meta levels. This is not the case. As stated, variances in fitting, cap consumptions and drawbacks are designed to give purpose to meta mods even for those that can use T2. This exists because no matter how much SP you have cap and fitting resources are not infinite.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Edit 2: At a PC now that can view the shield mod changes, everything is as I stated.

Shield recharger: Meta 0 and 1 both save fitting over T2
Shield power relay: Meta 0 and all meta 1's have lower fitting cost and lower cap recharge penalties
Shield flux capacitor: Again, fitting cost on Meta 0 and 1 as well as reduced shield penalty on restrained, while still all being mods of questionable use.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Edits for clarity.

Could you possibly edit for clarity on what your point regarding Tiericide is. I honestly have no idea anymore whether you think Meta 1 being worse than T2 in every way except fitting is good, or bad, or you've just been flip-flopping as your argument requires.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Edit: Given the pace set thus far and their current state why would turrets make people unhappy?
Are you seriously confused over why people will be unhappy about Meta 4 ceasing to exist? Why they'd be a little upset that they can no longer fake T2 by spending cash? Take a look at the prices on the compact/ample LMLs, and wonder why they aren't selling for a 300% premium over T2.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#290 - 2015-10-06 16:06:55 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
If it is boring to you, you do something wrong. Simple as that. There are loads of ways to make your ISK generation/income an exciting task. If you do not pursue these venues and opt for "boring" L4 mission running in High sec, it is your fault and the game is in no way to blame for that.

Furthermore, suggesting to remove the economy, the single-most important unique characteristic of the game, is even worse than any suggestion about arenas or removal of SP.


I think he was joking on removing the economy.

"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
#291 - 2015-10-06 16:22:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Dror wrote:
SP progression isn't gameplay.

As part of the game it undenyably is gameplay.

"The question of what makes a game fun to play is very similar to the question of what makes a joke funny. The best answer is that something is funny because there's laughter. Similarly, a game is fun to play if it's enjoyed."

There's no logging in, for a great experience, to "play" with the skill queue. It's not engaging; and yes, that is the established definition of the play phenomenon, which also includes finding the activity intrinsically motivating, so that there's no concern about "getting something" out of it.

What you're not providing is research that supports "SP" character progression as relevant.. or motivational. In fact, if there's concern about getting something out of the system, that's extrinsic motivation.. which is being described by CCP as detrimental for creativity and learning -- as well as by basic idea experiments, for the SP system, as negatively impacting the dynamic experience.


People sub to this game because they enjoy it. The timeframe in which one has to sub of forfeit the ability to play doesn't allow for significant SP to accrue. This means that every current player exists in disagreement with your premise and did play and enjoy the game with low SP. Recall for a moment that part of gaming motivation includes interaction and challenge, both of which are facilitated by SP, the former by creating interdependence for competencies you lack and the latter by creating comparative measures of raw power to overcome through creativity and/or skill.

This seems to miss the idea that whatever's trained can get repetitive. Does it really seem unheard of that a sub stops logging in if the game seems predictable? This comes back on the literal whole of the motivation discussion from the NPE videos. It's incredibly more accurate than just for fresh subs -- that's why the video has relevance, saying there's plenty of studies on extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation. It scales. It's scientific.

Predictability isn't reliant on the tool set. It can't be for play to be unpredictable since the toolset is largely static. Also, while the motivation of the skill queue is extrinsic, that's a non issue as removing SP doesn't create any intrinsic motivation as you claim. Rather the intrinsic motivation to find solutions with more limited characters is removed from the game for the extrinsic satisfaction of immediate access to "big ships." This is even more problematic because that extrinsic satisfaction would only be felt by those who had experience with the SP system prior and only leaves a lack of an intrinsic motivator.

The reward for subbing should be playing.. not getting a very linear unlock progression that makes playing seem ineffective and without much for learning fresh ships and roles. Why wouldn't it seem underwhelming (finishing) leveling a single ship like the Raven, for a limited role like missioning, with a decent set of skill points between that and something fresh? What if they had come for one of the stories that purportedly brings in so much traffic? That's how leveling and SP and incentive are correlative. Intrinsic motivation is about the enjoyment over the itemization reward systems. Whether they're there for something engaging or social or deep would technically be more relevant than if they're "unlocking ships", but finding an interesting playstyle requires the ships and fittings.

The reward for subbing is playing, and as stated above we all thought that reward worthwhile while still in our trial periods. Besides that you were never able to tell me in this supposedly linear training progression what comes after and before HAC V. If it's linear you should be able to tell what it is just from my current position. Further, that progression into more specialized tools is designed to assure competence with more general tools to keep that Raven pilot from being locked in should they find issue with it.

Requesting more information on motivation? Why not just take what CCP's saying as truth?

CCP never supported the concept of a progressionless Eve being beneficial. Thus ironically you are the one not taking their words as truth.

Can it honestly be said that SP makes players feel great and not awful?

I feel great and not awful about my total eve experience, so yes, it can be said.

There's a prevalence. SP can't serve both well. Finishing a skill (say, a level V for unlocking T2) has to split its reward with actually playing with the unlock and is a small "portion" of that training, but the negative feeling associated with limitations and the queues can pervade the assessment of everything else about the game. It feels cheap. It feels non-sandboxy. It undermines competence (learning the game could come much more efficiently without the gating). It reduces autonomy. It also reduces socialization potential, with some characters getting rejected for low SP. All of these studies and definitions are equally relevant. The experience is a sum of them all.

Except your statements are nothing but personal opinions not studies. You claim limits to intrinsic motivation while ignoring that actual intrinsic motivation of overcoming challenges such as lacking access to particular tools causing players to look into working alternatives and counters. And that's extremely sandboxy and directly competitive Also Eve is not about autonomy, rather the highest undertakings are intentionally efforts gaining from interdependence.

A "B-R" can be newbies in capitals...

It can also be a sufficient number of them in frigates, thus nothing is lost from them not being in caps
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#292 - 2015-10-06 16:47:30 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Could you possibly edit for clarity on what your point regarding Tiericide is. I honestly have no idea anymore whether you think Meta 1 being worse than T2 in every way except fitting is good, or bad, or you've just been flip-flopping as your argument requires.
Been very straightforward about it this whole time. There isn't any inconsistancy in what you quoted so nothing to clarify.

Quote:
Are you seriously confused over why people will be unhappy about Meta 4 ceasing to exist? Why they'd be a little upset that they can no longer fake T2 by spending cash? Take a look at the prices on the compact/ample LMLs, and wonder why they aren't selling for a 300% premium over T2.
They were never able to fake T2 by spending cash. Though considering the point of tiericide is to remove the issue of meta 4 being the only useful meta level, we should see more price parity between meta levels rather than having demand pent up at one of them.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#293 - 2015-10-06 16:48:35 UTC
To post a serious response, since it seems some people actually want to get rid of the skill queue, we need a time based skill queue because awoxing/stealing/etc. are allowed. We need it because we have a single shard universe.

Actions have consequences in EVE. If you lie, cheat, steal those actions are tied to your name. You can't simply start a new character, have the same skills and have a clean history. If there was no skill queue cheating, awoxing and stealing would be trivially easy. It's the same reason that we will never be allowed to change character names.

If I annoy someone with one of my posts or with something I do in game, they should be allowed to find me and kill me. I shouldn't be allowed to start a new character, biomass this one and have the same skills in game. That is the main reason why the current skill queue is needed.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Northern Coalition.
#294 - 2015-10-06 16:58:13 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
To post a serious response, since it seems some people actually want to get rid of the skill queue, we need a time based skill queue because awoxing/stealing/etc. are allowed. We need it because we have a single shard universe.

Actions have consequences in EVE. If you lie, cheat, steal those actions are tied to your name. You can't simply start a new character, have the same skills and have a clean history. If there was no skill queue cheating, awoxing and stealing would be trivially easy. It's the same reason that we will never be allowed to change character names.

If I annoy someone with one of my posts or with something I do in game, they should be allowed to find me and kill me. I shouldn't be allowed to start a new character, biomass this one and have the same skills in game. That is the main reason why the current skill queue is needed.


Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit

Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#295 - 2015-10-06 17:08:50 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?


Because then I just make two characters, duel myself for a few days and powerlevel back to where I was before.

Malcanis’ Law

Quote:
Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#296 - 2015-10-06 17:16:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
They were never able to fake T2 by spending cash. Though considering the point of tiericide is to remove the issue of meta 4 being the only useful meta level,
Lol

Don't keep me in suspense. I'm on the edge of my seat wondering why Meta4 is the only useful meta level, because apparently it isn't just because of the stat parity with T2.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#297 - 2015-10-06 17:29:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
tiberiusric wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
To post a serious response, since it seems some people actually want to get rid of the skill queue, we need a time based skill queue because awoxing/stealing/etc. are allowed. We need it because we have a single shard universe.

Actions have consequences in EVE. If you lie, cheat, steal those actions are tied to your name. You can't simply start a new character, have the same skills and have a clean history. If there was no skill queue cheating, awoxing and stealing would be trivially easy. It's the same reason that we will never be allowed to change character names.

If I annoy someone with one of my posts or with something I do in game, they should be allowed to find me and kill me. I shouldn't be allowed to start a new character, biomass this one and have the same skills in game. That is the main reason why the current skill queue is needed.


Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?



one toon using lasers another shooting back both RR'ing each other. make them battleships and have the 3 different sizes of laser and the 4 (cap,hull,shield,armor) different types of RR. cap stable t1 crystals never burn out. once maxed with a certain ship size switch to a different race or different size once RR is maxed only need cap transfers and one type (shield or armor) to keep from dieing a very slow death. Max all frigs/cruisers/BC/BS (basically anything that has high slots and go into high sec).

Park afk in some backwater high sec system. leave afk till everything is maxed. If wanting other guns need to bring lots of ammo cant be true afk.


So that is why they wont do it cause people like me already have makeshift plans of how we would max ourselves out with as little work as possible.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#298 - 2015-10-06 17:33:58 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?


Because then I just make two characters, duel myself for a few days and powerlevel back to where I was before.

Malcanis’ Law

Quote:
Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of ‘new players’, that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players


Basically this, the older/veteran players know how things work and would find ways to gain an advantage a new player probably wont figure out.

For example, what is to stop me from warping to a safe spot with two characters. Have one warp scramble the other, then go AFK for several hours on end? Come back and ta-da, I have an "expert" character at using propulsion jamming modules. Throw in orbiting in with a prop mode and I start leveling those skills. Turn on some tanking mods, and maybe a target painter or some other modules...say a small gun (which my "target character" can tank) and look, I'm skilling lots of skills easily and faster than alot of new players could. Some might think of it, but those that don't will be left behind until they do figure it out.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#299 - 2015-10-06 17:35:42 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
To post a serious response, since it seems some people actually want to get rid of the skill queue, we need a time based skill queue because awoxing/stealing/etc. are allowed. We need it because we have a single shard universe.

Actions have consequences in EVE. If you lie, cheat, steal those actions are tied to your name. You can't simply start a new character, have the same skills and have a clean history. If there was no skill queue cheating, awoxing and stealing would be trivially easy. It's the same reason that we will never be allowed to change character names.

If I annoy someone with one of my posts or with something I do in game, they should be allowed to find me and kill me. I shouldn't be allowed to start a new character, biomass this one and have the same skills in game. That is the main reason why the current skill queue is needed.


Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?



one toon using lasers another shooting back both RR'ing each other. make them battleships and have the 3 different sizes of laser and the 4 (cap,hull,shield,armor) different types of RR. cap stable t1 crystals never burn out. once maxed with a certain ship size switch to a different race or different size once RR is maxed only need cap transfers and one type (shield or armor) to keep from dieing a very slow death. Max all frigs/cruisers/BC/BS (basically anything that has high slots and go into high sec).

Park afk in some backwater high sec system. leave afk till everything is maxed. If wanting other guns need to bring lots of ammo cant be true afk.


So that is why they wont do it cause people like me already have makeshift plans of how we would max ourselves out with as little work as possible.


Damn you...beating me to the punch. P

"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

Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#300 - 2015-10-06 17:40:36 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lady Rift wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
To post a serious response, since it seems some people actually want to get rid of the skill queue, we need a time based skill queue because awoxing/stealing/etc. are allowed. We need it because we have a single shard universe.

Actions have consequences in EVE. If you lie, cheat, steal those actions are tied to your name. You can't simply start a new character, have the same skills and have a clean history. If there was no skill queue cheating, awoxing and stealing would be trivially easy. It's the same reason that we will never be allowed to change character names.

If I annoy someone with one of my posts or with something I do in game, they should be allowed to find me and kill me. I shouldn't be allowed to start a new character, biomass this one and have the same skills in game. That is the main reason why the current skill queue is needed.


Why can't you train skills the more you use something instead?



one toon using lasers another shooting back both RR'ing each other. make them battleships and have the 3 different sizes of laser and the 4 (cap,hull,shield,armor) different types of RR. cap stable t1 crystals never burn out. once maxed with a certain ship size switch to a different race or different size once RR is maxed only need cap transfers and one type (shield or armor) to keep from dieing a very slow death. Max all frigs/cruisers/BC/BS (basically anything that has high slots and go into high sec).

Park afk in some backwater high sec system. leave afk till everything is maxed. If wanting other guns need to bring lots of ammo cant be true afk.


So that is why they wont do it cause people like me already have makeshift plans of how we would max ourselves out with as little work as possible.


Damn you...beating me to the punch. P


totaly forgot about the tank mods/ewar and props. I focus straight off on different sizes of ships and guns along with logi.

I would add a 3rd toon(trial account even) to my mix so that each main can ecm that one as thats the only ewar which would have issues.

while typing out the first post i opened eft to see if i could get it to work. It does.