Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.

Black. And. White. Fallacies.

There are obviously reasons beyond "frigates are fine" that keep subs playing the game. Corps, buddies, extra dosh, and just indifferent curiosity are some of those. If you have something to refute, please do so. The points stand.. and could until they're evidenced against with something concrete. So, how about actually contributing to the conversation?

Which represents a small portion of the people who sub to EVE. By CCP's own numbers 50% people who pay for a sub leave before they can even 'level a Raven'. 40% of people sit on the SP treadmill until their Raven is leveled and then leave.

"XXX is fine because my vanishingly small minority of corp members are cool with it" isn't very convincing.

Which represents a small portion of the people who sub to EVE. By CCP's own numbers 50% people who pay for a sub leave before they can even 'level a Raven'. 40% of people sit on the SP treadmill until their Raven is leveled and then leave.

"XXX is fine because my vanishingly small minority of corp members are cool with it" isn't very convincing.

Feel free to point to any specific piece of evidence that hypothesizes Eve having a skill system is a demotivator. Not your interpretation of motivational theory, but actual correlation of evidence related to this game that states what you are claiming.

Or barring that, evidence directly stating character progressions systems are detrimental to engagement.

So, what's being said is that a relatively small percentage of the PC gaming demographic (some 900M) has found enough engagement to keep a sub?

Could it be admitted that motivation deals with "inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs"? Why would CCP suggest such an apparently common topic for their design philosophy if it wasn't an objective set of parameters? "We should switch over motivation types, because X." That's a very clear statement.

The problem with denying this is that there are supposedly hundreds of studies supporting the set of ideas (also hinted at by CCP). The simplicity is, "I can get lost in this activity. I'm unconcerned about gaining something.. but am just enjoying it." That's a small, windowed explanation of "flow state" which is discussed in sports. School sports aren't initially played because there's payment.. but because it's fun. It might be suggested that the benefit of intrinsic motivation is trained as such, through repetition, but it's not as if those freshly learning sports are particularly interested in getting paid.

I could make analogies and correlations, but it seems interesting what the reply is already. Motivation theories state that they deal with objective fulfillment. The obvious ideas really are "choice, socialization, and mastery". They fulfill a reward system that's more permanent than what comes from the extrinsic. Preventing that is preventing lasting stories that would be initially set up by learning (and performance) potential.

So, it's a fine idea just relegating any plausibility and research to "it's just a niche"? That's unsatisfactory. The only reason for the increase of starter SP is that there is a problem.

Motivation is initiative. It's the beginning of creativity. If you don't get motivation, you can't really state what the goal is. If you don't correlate how motivation effects gameplay and engagement, there are no claims or predictions. You're saying nothing. You dismiss theories on the basic developments of skill and interest.. with no reply.. no research.

How can SP, as an extrinsic motivation, be helpful in contrast of the many claims that this is a negative trait?

"Science shows these ideas lead to better satisfaction." Seems pretty appropriate.

Yet, if you can't provide logic for that SP is a helpful process, neither that it's the reason subs stay at all, what proof or claim are you even making? The whole of that, then, is just trying to hold a status quo you can't explain. Then you also couldn't explain the PCU decline? Then what benefit are these non-statements for the topic?

It's incredibly deflective. SP is no intrinsic motivator. There's no learning potential that comes specifically from it.. no mastery of what subs come for. This is just another way of saying, "Subs aren't getting the challenge for which they come." They don't get dropped in to "a game of depth and diversity", they get dropped in to a game of frigates. These are bold statements, and you can't refute them, that it somehow wouldn't deter interest in a game that seems like its bait-and-switching its feature list.. its news. Does it really affect the fantasy of a sandbox that subs get no "B-R"? Of course, that's no issue. They would just like an emergent experience where they can learn the game and show their crew how powerful they all can become.

He needs to do more than some pretty obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc that is immediately obvious when one realizes that PCU was going up when skills for years...when the game had "gating".

And no, SP isn't an intrinsic motivator, and has no need or obligation to be.

There are three factors, science shows, that lead to better performance.. and personal satisfaction: autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Autonomy is the desire to be self-directed.. to direct our own lives. Now, in many ways, traditional notions of management run afoul with that. Management is great if you want compliance, but if you want engagement.. self-direction is better.

{Example (5:39)}.. "[A company's] essentially saying, 'You probably want to do something interesting. Let me just get out of your way." [It's effective.]

Let's talk about Mastery. Mastery is our urge to get better at stuff. We like to get better at stuff. This is why.. people play musical instruments on weekends. You have all of these people who are acting in ways that seem irrational economically. They play musical instruments on weekends? Why? It's not going to get them a mate. It's not going to make them any money. Why are they doing it? 'Cos it's fun.. 'cos you get better at it.. and that's satisfying. Why do people do equally, if not more sophisticated work -- not for their employer, but for free (the introduction of Linux, Apache, and Wikipedia)? That's a strange economic behavior. Why are they doing this? It's overwhelmingly clear: challenge and mastery, along with making a contribution.

{Message on how to make something a more entertaining experience and get better talent for your experience.}

"When the profit motive (money philosophy) becomes completely unhitched from the purpose motive (design philosophy), it just -- people don't do great things.

..Steve Jobs: 'I want to put a ding in the universe.' That's the kind of thing that might get you up in the morning, racing to go to work. We are purpose maximizers, not just profit maximizers. The science shows that we care about mastery very very deeply, and the science shows that we want to be self-directed."

You focus exclusively on SP.

Yes, I have no evidence…but neither do you!

Nothing but an unmitigated good, when people point out potential problems