These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
#381 - 2015-10-09 18:48:12 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
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.


Great point of course and just playing devil's advocate here:

If your point is valid (which it is) then why not just forbid recreating a new character unless X days have passed? So that no matter what you do, "John Smith" is the same person for (example) one calendar year. After that the player could have the option of resting their character or lock it in for another year.

That should alleviate most of what you mentioned and also remove the need for skills.


Remember, I'm not for removing skills...I'm the other end of the spectrum but I see the point of it being more all or none rather than mix.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#382 - 2015-10-09 18:51:54 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
Great point of course and just playing devil's advocate here:

If your point is valid (which it is) then why not just forbid recreating a new character unless X days have passed? So that no matter what you do, "John Smith" is the same person for (example) one calendar year. After that the player could have the option of resting their character or lock it in for another year.

That should alleviate most of what you mentioned and also remove the need for skills.


Remember, I'm not for removing skills...I'm the other end of the spectrum but I see the point of it being more all or none rather than mix.


I would then just only pay for accounts with PLEX and roll new accounts over and over. Or only pay one month at a time and be able to start a new character every month
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#383 - 2015-10-09 18:52:31 UTC

Interesting that you link that video again. Mind watching minute 18:00 - 19:00. Might give you an idea about what we are talking about all the time and what you do not want to see.

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.

Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
#384 - 2015-10-09 18:57:35 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
I would then just only pay for accounts with PLEX and roll new accounts over and over. Or only pay one month at a time and be able to start a new character every month


But what is the reroll time-period was 6 months or 12 months?
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#385 - 2015-10-09 19:01:09 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
But what is the reroll time-period was 6 months or 12 months?


Because then you restrict people from opening new alt accounts that they are actually going to use.
Loki Yamaguchi
Level 42 Industries
#386 - 2015-10-09 19:21:59 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
But what is the reroll time-period was 6 months or 12 months?


Because then you restrict people from opening new alt accounts that they are actually going to use.


Well no as there would be no restriction on alts as it is now...but those alts would also be under the 6/12 month lock. So any shenanigans due to old/new character creation would really have to be elaborate.
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#387 - 2015-10-09 19:24:47 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
Well no as there would be no restriction on alts as it is now...but those alts would also be under the 6/12 month lock. So any shenanigans due to old/new character creation would really have to be elaborate.


The ingenuity of older players to get around these things is astounding. I know someone who pays monthly for VPNs to run clients off of so that he legitimately looks like different people/his computers are in different physical locations.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#388 - 2015-10-09 19:38:48 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
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.


Great point of course and just playing devil's advocate here:

If your point is valid (which it is) then why not just forbid recreating a new character unless X days have passed? So that no matter what you do, "John Smith" is the same person for (example) one calendar year. After that the player could have the option of resting their character or lock it in for another year.

That should alleviate most of what you mentioned and also remove the need for skills.


Remember, I'm not for removing skills...I'm the other end of the spectrum but I see the point of it being more all or none rather than mix.


Ahhh yes, the old, "kick the can down the road a bit." P

What if I have 2 or more accounts?

"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
#389 - 2015-10-09 19:50:30 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
But what is the reroll time-period was 6 months or 12 months?


Because then you restrict people from opening new alt accounts that they are actually going to use.


Well no as there would be no restriction on alts as it is now...but those alts would also be under the 6/12 month lock. So any shenanigans due to old/new character creation would really have to be elaborate.


So as a player with 3 accounts I could engage in all sorts of shenanigans for 2 months, then switch over to account 2, do the same for 2 months, then the same on the 3rd, then back to the first, swapping assets, ISK, etc.

Nope no problem there. P

Basic lesson from economics: want more of something make it cheaper (e.g. a subsidy). In this case, removing skills/SP would make AWOXing, corporate theft, and so forth cheaper than it already is. So we'll get lots, lots more of it. And keep in mind, there have been players in the past who have found loop holes like this and exploited the **** out of them. Some have even done it simply to highlight how bad a given change was. That whole FW/LP debacle.

While it is tolerated as a form of game play, if it gets to such a level many players might simply decide to quit.

"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
#390 - 2015-10-09 21:08:05 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Dror wrote:
The reply is coherent. CCP discusses the lowest common denominator and improving that experience.

The point of discussing motivation being objective is that "demographics" are irrelevant. Saying that demographics are relevant requires sourcing.


You didn't even reply. You're comparing EVE to general gaming statistics, which is not something that's relevant. That's my point.

Care to actually reply to it for a change?

Understanding target demographics and customer profiles are keys to literally any business.

Motivational theories are nothing exclusive to "general gaming statistics". That's what objective implies.

Demographics are fine for marketing, but the discussion is what comes with actual play.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The 0-5 system is very useful for that reason. It means that any new player can always aspire to be as good as the longest vet in any given hull that they focus on as the relevant character skills are limited to a subset at all V's. Then it comes down to player skill no matter how long each player has pplayed for. This doesn't however stop another player gaining an advantage by training for the same amount of time but only to level IV's and then having access to more hulls which may or may not give them an advantage.

It brings more choice whilst meaning the new players can always catch up to vets one hull at a time ( or one science skill at a time, hacking ability at a time etc etc)

This is contrasting skill vs. no skills, though. SP preventing a character from mastering something invalidates any (ideas on) aspirations of greatness. That "fairness" and min-maxing are plausible if all skills are trained, is no qualifier for how much (more) comes without SP. Maybe the point is just that topping out is SP's optimal; but if that's a topic, doesn't the skill system seem underwhelming for an RPG mechanic?

It's supposed to provide depth and creativity. Yet, EVE's depth comes mostly from its variety -- fleet comps and ranges and sandbox options. The depth is the fullness of the game. Obviously, starting as a fresh character is basically always the same.. and would be for referrals. Starting a sandbox MMO is supposed to be taking off for the unimaginable. Furthermore, there's nothing homey about SP training. "'Reality' consists of things that can be recognized on a visceral and tangible level. Having objects and people behave realistically allows us to draw upon our own experiences and understanding of materials and events, which helps us immerse ourselves into the experience." There's nothing realistically interesting or comforting about setting a queue. It's abstract. It's completely Sci-Fi and obviously non-helpful for the fresh character's entertainment. No character is going to open EVE eventually and sustain the idea that SP provides such character depth, that he should refer all his crew.

Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Repeating what I said a few pages back:

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.

There can literally be one character per account without an SP system.. ever. Creating a fresh character can require a fresh account. Rep can be tied to that as well.

Awoxing/etc. already happens with bought toons. If that's happening on a main, it's unlikely that they're experienced enough, or that the corp is experienced enough, for there to be enough stuff for that to make the news. Most of these ops are completely invested as well. There's very little opportunity for hitting rank 1 with a corp, and it's fine if there's slightly more in the manner of corp restrictions for their ranks. If that includes helping newbies learn the game and other pro bono play, then that actually benefits the status quo. Spending PLEX on multiple characters for every spy op is probably limited to a very small percentage of the player base. The problems of multiple characters can obviously be dealt with simply.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
Interesting that you link that video again. Mind watching minute 18:00 - 19:00. Might give you an idea about what we are talking about all the time and what you do not want to see.

The Opportunities system is a tiny portion of learning the game. If it's supposed to be evidence against the idea of the lowest common denominator (or for that of demographics), that seems imperceptible.

"SP is helpful for the game?" Here's all of the research on motivation -- it says the opposite! What purpose does it serve, then? Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged. "Fix sov!" you say? Remove SP.

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#391 - 2015-10-09 21:18:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Basic lesson from economics: want more of something make it cheaper (e.g. a subsidy). In this case, removing skills/SP would make AWOXing, corporate theft, and so forth cheaper than it already is. So we'll get lots, lots more of it. And keep in mind, there have been players in the past who have found loop holes like this and exploited the **** out of them. Some have even done it simply to highlight how bad a given change was. That whole FW/LP debacle.

While it is tolerated as a form of game play, if it gets to such a level many players might simply decide to quit.

With that logic, the freedom of any type of gameplay would increase all of them, including from more subs.

That's a direct rationalization for the initiative that's promoted by freedom.

"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
#392 - 2015-10-09 21:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Cidanel Afuran
Dror wrote:

Motivational theories are nothing exclusive to "general gaming statistics". That's what objective implies.

Demographics are fine for marketing, but the discussion is what comes with actual play.


Demographics are the entire point of this. You keep ignoring the fact that the average EVE player is looking for a different experience than other gamers. The typical motivational tools don't apply.

So again, what is EVE's target demographic? That question comes before anything you are suggesting. You can't talk about motivational theory until you know who you are trying to motivate.

Quote:
There can literally be one character per account without an SP system.. ever. Creating a fresh character can require a fresh account. Rep can be tied to that as well.

Awoxing/etc. already happens with bought toons. If that's happening on a main, it's unlikely that they're experienced enough, or that the corp is experienced enough, for there to be enough stuff for that to make the news. Most of these ops are completely invested as well. There's very little opportunity for hitting rank 1 with a corp, and it's fine if there's slightly more in the manner of corp restrictions for their ranks. If that includes helping newbies learn the game and other pro bono play, then that actually benefits the status quo. Spending PLEX on multiple characters for every spy op is probably limited to a very small percentage of the player base. The problems of multiple characters can obviously be dealt with simply.


Sure, that just creates a completely different game. You aren't trying to fix EVE, you are trying to make a brand new game.

If I let an account unsub and start a new one, how is reputation linked between those two? And you aren't allowed to lie about buying a character, so assuming corps do the standard checks, you know what characters are bought to prevent awoxing. With your idea that safety buffer is now gone. Your idea is the opposite of helping newbies. It's giving them everything at once in an already complicated game instead of forcing them to slow down and learn the mechanics as they go.

Quote:
With that logic, the freedom of any type of gameplay would increase all of them, including from more subs.

That's a direct rationalization for the initiative that's promoted by freedom.


More subs isn't necessarily a good thing if it compromises what made EVE successful for over a decade. Most of us would rather have EVE as it is now with 25k people active at once than have it watered down as you suggest and have 500k people online.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#393 - 2015-10-09 21:19:30 UTC
Loki Yamaguchi wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
the 0-5 system is very useful for that reason. It means that any new player can always aspire to be as good as the longest vet in any given hull that they focus on as the relevant character skills are limited to a subset at all V's. Then it comes down to player skill no matter how long each player has pplayed for. This doesn't however stop another player gaining an advantage by training for the same amount of time but only to level IV's and then having access to more hulls which may or may not give them an advantage.

It brings more choice whilst meaning the new players can always catch up to vets one hull at a time ( or one science skill at a time, hacking ability at a time etc etc)


You have a valid point but IMO it's the same as having no skills. I'm sure CCP figured-out that LVL5's XP equivalent represented a target time/$$$ level they wanted ambitious players to have to play to in-order to be maxed but really, if the core philosophy is player skill over time investment then why have them at all as the OP suggests. It's a bit of a tease and borders on the pointless. Yes you need it but really, it seems like a case of it being a good idea back in 01/02 when they were designing the game.


It's not about being maxed out as that takes a very long time. It's about making players choose where they place their time and living with the consequences. My character is a good example of this I think. I am not going to be taking down visitors to the WH I'm in solo as I've never focused on those skills. However I can ad more than adequate dps or logistics to tip the balance. I can also help buy buying their loot from sites direct and turning it into tech III's for profit. I can build large amounts of the modules regularly used and the ammunition/charges for them. I can build any and all of the POS structures we need.

My skills are a more general spread but this makes me useful in many areas whilst not perfect in them. The more dedicated PvP players who defend our space have about the same SP but our varied skillsets complement each othr very well. If everyone has perfect skills then there is no longer any need for players to interact with those who follow different paths, they can just have a bunch of equally perfect alts which would become very dull very quickly.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#394 - 2015-10-09 21:43:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Corraidhin Farsaidh
Dror wrote:


Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
The 0-5 system is very useful for that reason. It means that any new player can always aspire to be as good as the longest vet in any given hull that they focus on as the relevant character skills are limited to a subset at all V's. Then it comes down to player skill no matter how long each player has pplayed for. This doesn't however stop another player gaining an advantage by training for the same amount of time but only to level IV's and then having access to more hulls which may or may not give them an advantage.

It brings more choice whilst meaning the new players can always catch up to vets one hull at a time ( or one science skill at a time, hacking ability at a time etc etc)

This is contrasting skill vs. no skills, though. SP preventing a character from mastering something invalidates any (ideas on) aspirations of greatness. That "fairness" and min-maxing are plausible if all skills are trained, is no qualifier for how much (more) comes without SP. Maybe the point is just that topping out is SP's optimal; but if that's a topic, doesn't the skill system seem underwhelming for an RPG mechanic?

No character is prevented from mastering anything, they have to make choices about what to master next and to what level. And you can not aspire to greatness if you are handed every skill at perfect levels. What aspiration is there if you can just do everything? 'Oh I wish I could fly a dreadnaught...Hey look at that, I already can'. The EvE skill system is great as far as an RPG goes, it allows me to develop a character tailored to the things I want to do in game, and allows me to learn into other areas of the game as my whims change.

Every single RPG game uses skills and attributes to some degree as far as I know. Vampyr: the Masquerade was about the most free format I played but that still used skills and experience to a degree. CyberPunk 2020 was more reliant on the skill system but probably the best game I played. In EvE I don't have to grind through any type of mission, site, whatever to gain SP. I acquire them over time whether I'm logged in or not. When logged in I do what I choose without worrying about this and leave my next skill training whilst I use my current ones. When not logged in I'm *still* training my next skill, no grind required. This is a very good system as far as I'm concerned.

Dror wrote:

It's supposed to provide depth and creativity. Yet, EVE's depth comes mostly from its variety -- fleet comps and ranges and sandbox options. The depth is the fullness of the game. Obviously, starting as a fresh character is basically always the same.. and would be for referrals. Starting a sandbox MMO is supposed to be taking off for the unimaginable. Furthermore, there's nothing homey about SP training. "'Reality' consists of things that can be recognized on a visceral and tangible level. Having objects and people behave realistically allows us to draw upon our own experiences and understanding of materials and events, which helps us immerse ourselves into the experience." There's nothing realistically interesting or comforting about setting a queue. It's abstract. It's completely Sci-Fi and obviously non-helpful for the fresh character's entertainment. No character is going to open EVE eventually and sustain the idea that SP provides such character depth, that he should refer all his crew.

.


You mention having objects and people behave realistically. The physics in EvE is ... problematic at best. People behave in ways they (hopefully) never would even consider in the real world. It is a game, a certain amount of disattendence is required to enjoy it. Using the skill queue is a test of planning and forethought, it gives a player goals to aim for and events to plan for. If you want to drag reality into this it also gives an approximation of the character you are roleplaying having to actually learn some of the mind-boggling skills you are proposing they are all granted right off the bat.

Character depth comes from how old a character is, this is governed by the SP they have to a large extent. The variety of characters at different ages and therefore skill depths gives rise to the variety of ships and activities taking place all around you in EvE. Make every the same as a perfect skilled clone of each other and this variety will disappear. Only the pinnacle ship from each class will be flown as everyone will be able to do so and there would be no advantage to any character not to do so.

I refer back to the thread title again. If you remove the skill system you remove the technical and ideological heart of the game. This doesn't just break the game, it completely mutates it into something else that happens to use the same graphics and ship names. And I'm assuming just setting all skills to V and leaving the checks against them in as bloatware. I shudder to think of the horrors that would befall the Devs should they actually try to remove them.

Ed: Another point. I am invested in my character as I have invested time and effort into it's creation and growth. It is a reflection of my choices and experiences in the game and shows what I can and cannot offer to a prospective corp. Remove skills and skill queue planning and you remove all of this. My character is now exactly the same as every other character in EvE no matter what avatar I may pick for it. I would have absolutely no investment at all in the process and if I got a bad rep as a pirate for instance I'd just unsub and start a new character if I wanted to play as a hisec carebear. There would be absolutely no consequence to doing this whatsoever. Since actions having consequences is another central tenet of EvE this idea would kill that as well.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#395 - 2015-10-09 22:42:09 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Dror wrote:

Motivational theories are nothing exclusive to "general gaming statistics". That's what objective implies.

Demographics are fine for marketing, but the discussion is what comes with actual play.


Demographics are the entire point of this. You keep ignoring the fact that the average EVE player is looking for a different experience than other gamers. The typical motivational tools don't apply.

So again, what is EVE's target demographic? That question comes before anything you are suggesting. You can't talk about motivational theory until you know who you are trying to motivate.

Then source where it says that demographics effect motivation. Until then, the research provided state very simple ideas. "Intrinsic motivation is way more effective and helpful than extrinsic," etc.

If "nature" effected every demographic exactly the same, identical twins would have the same array of choices. In fact, they're completely spontaneous.

Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Sure, that just creates a completely different game. You aren't trying to fix EVE, you are trying to make a brand new game.

That's cherry-picking EVE's features for the topic. The obvious reason subs come for the game is that it's a sandbox. This may seem up for debate, but it lines up with the keys of motivation. It's basically like other games, but so much more. A very small percentage of the gaming demographic would come only for -- what, every bit of gameplay being tied to one character? ..That they could be a more effective spy if they spent more money? The whole of the game is still massive sovereignties, depth of choice, plenty for mastery, and freedom. None of those are affected by unrestricted gameplay, except positively.

So, figuring out alts is an implementation issue; and it's plausibly as simple as a no-alts rule. The average accounts? 1.5. Yet, if more mains are online because of 90% more depth for their gameplay, it's a non-issue, and the trend is more subs. The base of the discussion is how SP effects motivation and creativity and mastery and other benefits of video games. The translation is how these becoming better effect sustain. A true sandbox can benefit from gross amounts of social advertising and learning stories.

"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
#396 - 2015-10-10 00:38:02 UTC
Dror,

I like the fact i can have a couple of characters on each account, an switch them out as needed. As well as have the number of accounts that i do for various reasons.

SKill Points and the skill que are needed by EvE, since i doubt anybody has the 28.6 yrs required to train every skill to level 5 then it remains that players have choices how specialized their characters are and in what career path.
what you think is really wrong, and stupid....becasue of the fact EvE is unlike every other game out there.

Now if you cant get this through your skull, then maybe EvE is simply just the wrong game for you, we the players that come here to play something different from the rest of what is offerred. We like the asshattery, we like the challenges, we enjoy feeling of paranoia/fear/bloodlust mixed into one emotional andrenal filled moment,........

And for the most part we do not care what you think about how the game should change, if you do not like it then maybe you should just unistall, unplug from EvE...basically pod thy self and just go away....go back to where ever you came from.
At this point, i have decided to make this my last post on this thread and i seriously hope/wish ISD would lock it.....because you are worth nothing at this point except to be called rightly so....nothing but a troll that deserves to be podded/griefed from this game if you keep up this line of thought.

Have a good day....
and PS: STFU!!

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2015-10-10 01:12:18 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Dror,

I like the fact i can have a couple of characters on each account, an switch them out as needed. As well as have the number of accounts that i do for various reasons.

SKill Points and the skill que are needed by EvE, since i doubt anybody has the 28.6 yrs required to train every skill to level 5 then it remains that players have choices how specialized their characters are and in what career path.
what you think is really wrong, and stupid....becasue of the fact EvE is unlike every other game out there.

Now if you cant get this through your skull, then maybe EvE is simply just the wrong game for you, we the players that come here to play something different from the rest of what is offerred. We like the asshattery, we like the challenges, we enjoy feeling of paranoia/fear/bloodlust mixed into one emotional andrenal filled moment,........

And for the most part we do not care what you think about how the game should change, if you do not like it then maybe you should just unistall, unplug from EvE...basically pod thy self and just go away....go back to where ever you came from.
At this point, i have decided to make this my last post on this thread and i seriously hope/wish ISD would lock it.....because you are worth nothing at this point except to be called rightly so....nothing but a troll that deserves to be podded/griefed from this game if you keep up this line of thought.

Have a good day....
and PS: STFU!!


But apart from that...what don't you agree with?

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#398 - 2015-10-10 02:00:57 UTC
I would stop playing all together.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2015-10-10 02:27:04 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Max Deveron wrote:
Dror,

I like the fact i can have a couple of characters on each account, an switch them out as needed. As well as have the number of accounts that i do for various reasons.

SKill Points and the skill que are needed by EvE, since i doubt anybody has the 28.6 yrs required to train every skill to level 5 then it remains that players have choices how specialized their characters are and in what career path.
what you think is really wrong, and stupid....becasue of the fact EvE is unlike every other game out there.

Now if you cant get this through your skull, then maybe EvE is simply just the wrong game for you, we the players that come here to play something different from the rest of what is offerred. We like the asshattery, we like the challenges, we enjoy feeling of paranoia/fear/bloodlust mixed into one emotional andrenal filled moment,........

And for the most part we do not care what you think about how the game should change, if you do not like it then maybe you should just unistall, unplug from EvE...basically pod thy self and just go away....go back to where ever you came from.
At this point, i have decided to make this my last post on this thread and i seriously hope/wish ISD would lock it.....because you are worth nothing at this point except to be called rightly so....nothing but a troll that deserves to be podded/griefed from this game if you keep up this line of thought.

Have a good day....
and PS: STFU!!


But apart from that...what don't you agree with?


This, basically. A wall of text anecdote is just that.

The option of replying with statistics, logic, and/or research is still open.

"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
#400 - 2015-10-10 04:49:52 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Basic lesson from economics: want more of something make it cheaper (e.g. a subsidy). In this case, removing skills/SP would make AWOXing, corporate theft, and so forth cheaper than it already is. So we'll get lots, lots more of it. And keep in mind, there have been players in the past who have found loop holes like this and exploited the **** out of them. Some have even done it simply to highlight how bad a given change was. That whole FW/LP debacle.

While it is tolerated as a form of game play, if it gets to such a level many players might simply decide to quit.

With that logic, the freedom of any type of gameplay would increase all of them, including from more subs.

That's a direct rationalization for the initiative that's promoted by freedom.


What? It isn't more freedom, it is that it would become less costly so we'd have more of it. You're claim about more subs is a complete non-sequitur...which is all too common with you.

"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