Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So, state more problems instead of griping about an overall great post?


What relevance is ratting if it requires an AWOXer to still find the target or be told the location? The remainder of that logic train seems tangential.

On corps, literally what's the issue?

TK. How is there more susceptibility to that, if it's blatantly obvious to keep that information discreet? There are literally thousands of systems. Technically speaking, corps could just require better referrals. If this is any disservice to ginormous alliances, fug 'em. It's well known that the game would benefit from less bluesec.

You're precisely not making a point. Discussing not if an idea is helpful or diminishing, but how much so?

If newbies are frozen out of NS corps, why wouldn't they team up and learn the game and make something of their characters' value? This would apparently affect all of NS though, so wouldn't there be plenty of residual options? Frankly though, from stories, AWOXing is a deep process; and any great spy would simply outplay the indifferent procedure of most corps (as is). Furthermore, with something like ship-kill displays on the ships, wouldn't it seem as simple placing "originally owned by" in a note set?

PS: the claim about capitals and BR-types obviously requires the availability of those resources. Nothing is implying, in probably any post, that the immediate playstyle of any fresh sub trends directly for carriers. Nothing is implying at all that ships above a few billion would be roaming.

"..More of something? Make it 'cheaper,'" is the idea.

Except, the idea is that all characters would be in question. Nothing's suggesting that the huge sovereignties could sustain their size with that level of character affluence.


There are niches. Playstyles and fantasies interested enough in capitals would fly them.

..More of larger ships? Them making more ISK is a decent reason.

I am making a very clear and obvious point for those who want to think and be reasonable and rationale. That you think otherwise suggest you are a "pie in the sky" person. That type thinking is utterly useless in my view.

You make certain claims. People point out problems then you make new claims that invalidate or weaken your initial claims and you ignore these inherent contradictions.

You are, literally, the worst advocate for the removal of SP/skills. Aerasia's snark and Mara's sweeping generalizations are better than your "say whatever is needed at the moment...consistency be damned approach."

No, rather that makes existing ties comparatively that much greater. New characters won't have the benefit of existing connections while existing characters will.

A whole subset of goon propaganda says that every pilot helps is exactly right. It says that right now. Not after getting into BSs and carriers. Not after millions of SP. Now. No mention of Goons will ever serve your point because their utilization of fresh new players is the antithesis of your position.

And no, re-imagining as an alt is not necessary for awox viability. In your desired skill-less game there is no limit to such viability, hence the issue. Also the dead simple workaround to a ship identifier is to not got the ship from a known character. The market exists and cheap gank ships abound there. That's a complete non-measure as it's not even a trivial workaround to bypass, one just uses the primary means of obtaining ships and mods.

Your last paragraph falls in conflict with your first though. Again, you point to a group that incorporates new players from the moment they create a character in a social and competency building group. Every one of them can GF right now. Why can't you?

How many cap using corps/alliances do you think only have one cap pilot?

Obviously it's enough to sustain a subscription long enough for the pilots to move of. For proof we have every account that has ever subbed. Also we just discussed how capability without competence is unhelpful and builds distrust in new players due to the possibility of being a character created with ill intent.

It was also pointed out that veterans with access to those same character creation abilities exasperate issues for new players from an economic perspective as well as exploiting their newfound ability to create anonymous alt with advanced functions that can be used for immediate destructive and deceptive purpose.

If engagement is an issue, then being more character capable but more isolated, thus more likely to be less competent and thus less actually capable in usage and procurement of specialized tools. These are qualitative negatives for engagement. Also, everyone can GF from the moment a character is created. That you can't is a personal issue, not for the game to resolve.

So then you weren't trying to make a point about needing to trust other cap capable pilots?

What about the declining PCU? Do you know which subs are not logging in? Do you have some data to suggest it trends towards low SP subs? Your use of conjecture below makes your PCU speculation comical.

Also it's a short train to a cruiser, which does not need T2 fittings to be effective, but still allows a wide variety of T2 mods to be paced with, again, a number of short trains.

The use of the market is not conjecture, but fact. The presence of increased harmful capabilities in new characters without the skill system is fact. The ability to roll more capable alts and instantly place them into isk making ventures is fact.

Basing conjecture upon these facts is a non-issue, especially when compared with your own conjecture which simply ignores any less than convenient consequence and creates conclusions from a complete lack of evidence.

It's a worthless qualifier how many cap pilots are in a corp if all of the pilots in a corp become cap pilots.


Whether low SP subs are logging in is an unnecessary statistic. It's already reported that fresh-sub retention is really low. That is ultimately them logging in no more. Saying that some subbed accounts is defining proof on the quality of SP is shallow. For clarity, I'm discussing research and motivation through the topics of depth and strategy.

Capability without practice is fantasy -- autonomy, which is motivating. There's no exasperation of issues for newbie economic potential with more options. Their ability to successfully re-character is still in question, as that's of implementation.

The likelihood of finding training is great, so there's also no issue. That comes back to fresh subs being effective. There's also a community subset that finds value training effective playstyles.


Except, they were all just refuted. There are plenty of options for fresh players without limitations. If that's mining, production, and marketing, that's more helpful than putting them in the over-suggested position of light tackle. Yet, there's no limitation on that specific gameplay dynamic.

This post set up the idea that accounts subbed is a valid statistic for evidencing the status quo of the SP system and its motivational factors. The simple reply is that if subs, a number that is unavailable, are evidence of the sustaining potential of SP, then every unsub is equal evidence for its negativity. In fact, though, both are logically invalid as Appeal to Extremes. Refute 1. The contrast is made that saying SP is motivating and sustaining is of little obviousness with a declining PCU. If it was so helpful for developing motivational factors, the PCU could remain steady from fresh subs replacing vets, etc.

"Capability without competence is unhelpful"? Prove it. What does that make incapability without competence? How do you prove SP, as an extrinsic reward, is helpful against the completely opposite research results and theories -- and even CCP -- saying that extrinsic reward is detrimental for initiative?

How is productivity effected by non-restrictions? There are still the same free ships and ISK from the tutorial missions, which very simply allow just mining in a Venture until affording something of similar scale (beyond their already-obtained, starter ship set). If that's market investment, that's fine. There's nothing inherently limiting about non-restricted SP. Yet, it would seem the fresh sub's power to generate ISK would increase by a great margin because of the market and margin-trading skill bonuses.. as well as increased processing efficiency (for a very simple, example trend).

That some corps "find fresh subs effective" is neither conclusive evidence of SP's helpfulness, nor a logical response to how effective subs could be without limitations. As stated, their increased performance potential is a direct line to a fleet comp that's more deep than that of a role they have no business as.

Digressing, if "unrestrictions exasperate the economical problems of newbies", there's no logical reason for it -- they have an increased potential for making ISK.. which is literally as simple, of an example, as increased mining efficiency because of those skills now being at V. By your logic of "reduced economic potential leading to less competence and thus less actually capable usage and procurement of specialized tools", their increased (e.g. mining) efficiency leads to more competence and capable usage and procurement of specialized tools. Refutement 2.

If these are refuted, the problem of "qualitative negatives" has disappeared. Again, fresh subs are more effective than they would be, with more options leading to more exploration and more potential for creativity.