These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2015-10-14 04:29:42 UTC
Dror wrote:
As well, on interdependence, it's probably a great guess that a majority of corps are limited by pilot SP. The average member count of corps seems an elusive number, but EveWho lists 7.8M characters and 332k corporations -- which is an average of about 24 characters per corporation. For the example, it's probably worth pretending that the average corp has about 50, because that's a pretty simple goal.
Why are we pretending the average corp has 50 when we know that's mathematically untrue?

Dror wrote:
What can these corps aspire to, honestly? A lot of those members are probably fresh characters. Most recruits come from militia chat and adverts, which makes this even more plausible (established pilots have corps). Guess what their roams are? ..Nothing cruisers or above. Some are gatecamps, roams, FW, and maybe even null, but the level of competency that comes with mostly fresh characters is much less incentive to bring expensive ships. Even more, the majority of play is still probably scram range (especially with these classes of play), so they're mostly welp fleets of some sort. ..It's that there's no progression. What if the majority of those fresh characters stop logging in? The cycle repeats. There's the added problem of hisec wardec'ing, but that's more of a leadership problem -- that they are filling corp hangars. It's also incredibly uninteresting making ISK with low SP, which consists mostly of exploration, combat sites, maybe some missioning, and orbiting FW beacons. It seems that unrestricted options could get corps in to more adventurous roles, much more with the sov redesign. There's obviously more than that -- it's about strategy, which requires options. Whether it's the production of corp ships or just the motivation to play more to fund bigger ships, the issue is having the SP throughput to compete with neighboring corps.
This is just a giant heap of assumptions in a row. Why were the recruits in millitia and not starter NPC corps? Why do we assume none trained the short train to cruisers? Why do we treat their collective state as static? Did they all start on the same day? Did the ones that started sooner not train anything? Why are they all doing the exact same thing and in whelp fleets? Did none take interest in scanning/mining/trading/missioning/hauling/scamming/bumping/salvaging? Why did none fit long points? Does the corp not believe in range or kiting?

Basically you just created a scenario which has no reason to be inherently true for any player. I think I was in my first cruiser within a couple weeks. I also never whelped anything.

Dror wrote:
There should be nothing about that post that makes the topic seem about tackle roles. The majority of solo frigates are scram-fit, and this makes engagements all-or-nothing. That seems problematic, then comes checking on stats (which seem tiny), then comes the training queue seeming awful.
From the post responded to:

Dror wrote:
It's as simple as interest in the game. Maybe cruisers get newbies out of scram-web gameplay,
You associated getting out of frigates with getting out of web/scram game play. I simply informed you that getting into cruisers (or any other class of ship) was not necessary to get out of that same game play.

Dror wrote:
Fine, then.. it's a sniper Cormorant instead of cruisers. The point is that the need for a corp seems minimal with frigates because of how reportedly feasible they are. Honestly, the availability of greater ships and t2 mods would promote the benefits of a corp. Trying to find a market for the character's ores and refinements and productions and innovations could not only inspire location exploration, but also that much more learning and interest. Everything's correlated in the game, so every progression is correlative.
That doesn't answer the question of why getting new tools without SP is somehow different in regard to the desire to join a corp than getting new tools with SP. Cormorant, Moa, Naga or Rokh, why is the impetus suddenly different when the tools themselves don't change?

Also nothing prevents characters from exploring for ore, refining or trade now. So there is no change.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#502 - 2015-10-14 05:34:30 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Why are we pretending the average corp has 50 when we know that's mathematically untrue?

There's no actual reason to imply that the average corp has only 24 members. Getting 50 members is simple, but at both levels is still a tiny amount of group play.

In bold:
Quote:
Dror wrote:
What can these corps aspire to, honestly? A lot of those members are probably fresh characters. Most recruits come from militia chat and adverts, which makes this even more plausible (established pilots have corps). Guess what their roams are? ..Nothing cruisers or above. Some are gatecamps, roams, FW, and maybe even null, but the level of competency that comes with mostly fresh characters is much less incentive to bring expensive ships. Even more, the majority of play is still probably scram range (especially with these classes of play), so they're mostly welp fleets of some sort. ..It's that there's no progression. What if the majority of those fresh characters stop logging in? The cycle repeats. There's the added problem of hisec wardec'ing, but that's more of a leadership problem -- that they are filling corp hangars. It's also incredibly uninteresting making ISK with low SP, which consists mostly of exploration, combat sites, maybe some missioning, and orbiting FW beacons. It seems that unrestricted options could get corps in to more adventurous roles, much more with the sov redesign. There's obviously more than that -- it's about strategy, which requires options. Whether it's the production of corp ships or just the motivation to play more to fund bigger ships, the issue is having the SP throughput to compete with neighboring corps.
This is just a giant heap of assumptions in a row. Why were the recruits in millitia and not starter NPC corps? There's no reason to direct the conversation that way. Why do we assume none trained the short train to cruisers? Nothing says that, but that roams consist of nothing cruisers or above. Why would they fly anything more than frigates if they have no ISK and no experience? Why do we treat their collective state as static? Hmm? "It's that there is no progression," is just saying that the corp is making no increase in average ship size, in industry productivity, or in anything that would increase their status to "competitive". Did they all start on the same day? Did the ones that started sooner not train anything? Up until this patch, fresh characters only started with 50k SP. Beyond that, these are worthless questions because, by "static", the original interpretation is apparently that "no progression" implies no character advancement. Why are they all doing the exact same thing and in whelp fleets? Small gangs check around for others of the same size. This often leads to a more advanced response from the area, some getting picked off from the already-small fleet numbers, or just nothing. If they're all in frigates, what's the suggestion for range? Arty Rifters? Rail atrons? Drones V is 1/4 of their sub. Should every single frigate roam include only Kestrels and Condors? Did none take interest in scanning Why would they? /mining In a Venture? The further mining ships are much more training, and what are they going to do with the ore? "Nothing" is non-motivating. /trading With what item experience? /missioning Instead of orbiting beacons? /hauling There's a corp hauler ordinarily.. or they haul some stuff; but hauling is a small niche. It's non-engaging. Furthermore, what are they going to do with their freshly-found massive amounts of trucker ISK? The problem here is repetition and lack of diversity and effectiveness. /scamming/bumping/salvaging Even in L4s has awful profit potential? Why did none fit long points? Does the corp not believe in range or kiting?

Basically you just created a scenario which has no reason to be inherently true for any player. I think I was in my first cruiser within a couple weeks. I also never whelped anything. Maybe not intentionally, but it's still within the same point. Inb4 appeal to the dictionary.

From the post responded to:
Dror wrote:
It's as simple as interest in the game. Maybe cruisers get newbies out of scram-web gameplay,
You associated getting out of frigates with getting out of web/scram game play. I simply informed you that getting into cruisers (or any other class of ship) was not necessary to get out of that same game play.

..Hinting at a black and white fallacy where there was no intention of that idea. Some 80% of frigate options, especially with low requirements, are scram-range. Mediums have ACs, Arty, Rails, RLML, Heavys, HAMs, and Energy.

Dror wrote:
Fine, then.. it's a sniper Cormorant instead of cruisers. The point is that the need for a corp seems minimal with frigates because of how reportedly feasible they are. Honestly, the availability of greater ships and t2 mods would promote the benefits of a corp. Trying to find a market for the character's ores and refinements and productions and innovations could not only inspire location exploration, but also that much more learning and interest. Everything's correlated in the game, so every progression is correlative.
That doesn't answer the question of why getting new tools without SP is somehow different in regard to the desire to join a corp than getting new tools with SP. Cormorant, Moa, Naga or Rokh, why is the impetus suddenly different when the tools themselves don't change?

Also nothing prevents characters from exploring for ore, refining or trade now. So there is no change.

They have no experience with the depth of the game. That's a summary of this whole idea, that characters are quitting without any exploration. At least they could try the game instead of quitting out of boredom.

"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.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#503 - 2015-10-14 07:36:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Dror wrote:
There's no actual reason to imply that the average corp has only 24 members. Getting 50 members is simple, but at both levels is still a tiny amount of group play.
This is simple math, the average corp can't be 50 members if the average players per corp is 24. Simple as you may believe it, the numbers you give make it impossible for the average corp to have 50 members. Also given that there are some corps with very large numbers the typical corp having 50 members probably needs further research to justify.

Dror wrote:
There's no reason to direct the conversation that way. There is plenty of reason, as evidenced by the questions I posed.

Nothing says that, but that roams consist of nothing cruisers or above. Why would they fly anything more than frigates if they have no ISK and no experience? Why does this corp need to fully consist of new players? Why can the not have the support of older players and thus more varied fleet comps?

Hmm? "It's that there is no progression," is just saying that the corp is making no increase in average ship size, in industry productivity, or in anything that would increase their status to "competitive". Why? Again, are there no vets here guiding the new players towards constant improvement? Are those players also not showing initiative to learn how to effectively use their current skills? And why?

Up until this patch, fresh characters only started with 50k SP. Beyond that, these are worthless questions because, by "static", the original interpretation is apparently that "no progression" implies no character advancement. And that implication makes no sense as the above response demonstrates.

Small gangs check around for others of the same size. This often leads to a more advanced response from the area, some getting picked off from the already-small fleet numbers, or just nothing. If they're all in frigates, what's the suggestion for range? Arty Rifters? Rail atrons? Drones V is 1/4 of their sub. Should every single frigate roam include only Kestrels and Condors? Why would it include only kestrels and condors (leaving aside that you left out an option that can use the same long range weapon) when you just listed 2 other options (and the other options that use those weapons) and hinted at a 3rd (Hint: Drones V isn't mandatory)? You just pointed out that options exist.

Why would they? Why wouldn't they? I did.

In a Venture? The further mining ships are much more training, and what are they going to do with the ore? "Nothing" is non-motivating. Again, why not in a venture? It's capable, cheap and accessible. Further, they can do the same things with the ore everyone else does, sell or build.
With what item experience? The experience they gain through research or experimentation

Instead of orbiting beacons? Yes. Not sure what you're even trying to hint at here.

There's a corp hauler ordinarily.. or they haul some stuff; but hauling is a small niche. It's non-engaging. Furthermore, what are they going to do with their freshly-found massive amounts of trucker ISK? The problem here is repetition and lack of diversity and effectiveness. This again makes assumptions about the players desired role. Some people want to play space trucker, and the option isn't presented in a vacuum, it exists alongside all the others and thus can't be dismissed because some, even most, might find it boring.

Even in L4s has awful profit potential Compared to what? Other new player isk earning activities?

Maybe not intentionally, but it's still within the same point. Inb4 appeal to the dictionary. So the point is that you can come up with bull **** which needn't reflect anyone's starting experience, pass it off as typical, then base an argument for lack of engagement on it? And you consider that a coherent argument?


Dror wrote:
..Hinting at a black and white fallacy where there was no intention of that idea. Some 80% of frigate options, especially with low requirements, are scram-range. Mediums have ACs, Arty, Rails, RLML, Heavys, HAMs, and Energy.
Smalls have options in arty, beans and rails with skill-less op+falloff beyond scram range. lml's also reach beyond that range. That's 4/8 weapon types or 50%, not 20%. Beyond that what is the argument here?

Dror wrote:
They have no experience with the depth of the game. That's a summary of this whole idea, that characters are quitting without any exploration. At least they could try the game instead of quitting out of boredom.
They can try it now. I just listed a number of options to explore the game's depth which you tried to dismiss. Depth isn't just ships and mods.

Also, why would they have this automatic appreciation of the depth of the tools but still have no concept of what can be done with them? How does that conceptually work where a new player only becomes aware of the tools, how they work, but paradoxically never what they can do with them? As stated prior the new starting skills give access to a variety of game play, yet you're now stating the won't engage in it, but giving them more will somehow solve this? How do these tools keep them engaged when they literally can't figure out how to play the game according to you?
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#504 - 2015-10-14 14:26:25 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This is simple math, the average corp can't be 50 members if the average players per corp is 24. Simple as you may believe it, the numbers you give make it impossible for the average corp to have 50 members. Also given that there are some corps with very large numbers the typical corp having 50 members probably needs further research to justify.

There's literally no reason to average out members evenly over corps. A lot of corps could have a single member, but that definitely would give no justification to any practical analogy (for corps a fresh sub would join).. and the point is that getting 50 members is basically nothing. If it's actually more like 24 for corps that PvP, as is the main example of progression and competitiveness provided, then that would even better illustrate the activity problem. This evidencing that joining an average corp is none so motivating, under the current progression system, is probably accurate. They're still not getting the depth of the game..

Quote:
Why does this corp need to fully consist of new players? Why can the not have the support of older players and thus more varied fleet comps?

Have you ever been in a corp of about that size? It can have great leadership, but a corp of 30-50 has very few online at all.. much less a decent amount of veterans that are always just interested in training fresh subs. That training mentality and enjoyment is just only so rewarding for some.

Quote:
Why would it include only kestrels and condors?

You're overlooking the example reason frigs are flown. They're supposed to be versatile and effective, as is the narrative. As for getting out of the scram-web meta with frigates, you're free to list a solo frig that has a valid playstyle beyond scram range and does more than 60 DPS with 1M SP. That's if they can figure out about manual piloting, else why would they take 60DPS over 100+?

You're listing all of these options but under-representing the bottom line. The limited window of a few subscriptions is what the game apparently has to seem like an amazing game. An MMO's progression system is a feature idea that inherently has expectations. There's contrast being set for every experience. Many games that the market would have experience with have very small requirements for being competitive. That's obviously the motivator. They feel like being drawn through a huge experience. That, like learning and playing an instrument, is a rewarding experience. Feeling competitive and of worth is fun.

Then, how small does it make the game seem having so little SP? ..What's the go-to reason for why their resource processing efficiency is awful? What's the likely conclusion why their DPS is so low (..in EFT.. right by "All Level V" )? That doesn't ruin motivation and undock potential and creativity? Get real. It completely cheapens the experience from actual skillfulness.

"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
#505 - 2015-10-14 16:19:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Dror wrote:
They have no experience with the depth of the game. That's a summary of this whole idea, that characters are quitting without any exploration. At least they could try the game instead of quitting out of boredom.

If they quit because of boredom, having all things possible in the game unlocked would not have changed their minds either. These people are not capable of creating thinking, of finding solutions to problems or obstacles. The game is not boring even with few SP, you just need know what you can do. Again, I use my own experience as absolute indicator here, and I had very little time left to feel boredom with all the flying around, doing missions, doing the tutorials, talking to people, figuring out things in the game, getting shot and getting things taught to me. And this was while I was in my starter corp and had no ambitions to join a PC. If you quit because of boredom, get your expectations right, depart from your "I am the center of the universe" metality and try again.

Dror wrote:
Dror messing with large quotes (the one where he constantly complains about how limiting the game is, but can't figure out the easiest answers to the questions) because he cannot format text properly.

What are they going to do with the ore? Sell it to make ISK. They fail to sell it to the best possible price? Do they not notice? No? then they do not care what the best possible price is in any case. Splendid, they are on track to become yet another victim. Do they notice that there are better prices? Wonderful, they learned to compare prices and different regions. They are on track to become a valuable player. Do they ask questions what you can do with ore, how to sell it, where to sell it best, ask for a price comparison between their region and other regions? Fantastic, they inquire, ask, probe around, are curious. They also learned a lot of things and are also on track to become a valuable player.
Fleets full of Kestrels and Condors? Why not? They want action. If this is the best or easiest way to get action, they should go ahead. Some find it boring? Do they inquire for other options? No? Well, why are they complaining then if they have no interest in trying other things out? They do? Very nice. They can start skilling some basic skills for a different ship while they learn more tricks and features of the game with the Condor or Kestrel that are applicable to other ships as well.
Why would they take an interest in scanning? Well, for starts they need money. Scanning can provide money. Secondly, they want something to do. Oh, and suddenly they find a WH to some Low sec or Null sec and want to stray into to see what's going on? Nice. They are on to some very interesting and drastic experience. Will they die? Most likely. Have they learned something from that death? No? Well, another worthless victim. Yes? Very good, next time they will be more careful, start to check things, start to see patterns and are harder to catch. And maybe someone even tells them a trick or two about how to avoid getting caught in a bubble or not to run Relic sites in a Null system with people in it.
Hauling? Sounds boring? Then scout for the big corp hauler and help him get around CODE and other gankers. Still boring? Welcome to EVE PVP. At least you learn how to scout, how and what to look out for, what to pay attention for. You learned a lot. And your role is needed, more than ever these days. You can web? That's even better, because you can web your corp freighter and help him even more. How is that not engaging?
Trading? You have no experience? No problem, that's what Google is for, that is what other people in trade channels are for. Reading through a guide or two already gives you more than enough information to start experimenting. Will it always result in win and profit? Unlikely. But that teaches you to be careful with what you earn yourself and to look closer to the details. You start small anyways, mine a bit, make a couple hundred thousand ISK and use that money to trade some ammo. Maybe you find a blue wreck in some HS system with fancy stuff in it. More money for you and you got it because you were flying around.

This is the attitude that I expect from other people. If they do not show at least faint traces of these attributes and ways of thinking, their sub is worthless to the game and they can unsub for all I and CCP care.

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.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#506 - 2015-10-14 16:43:17 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dror wrote:
They have no experience with the depth of the game. That's a summary of this whole idea, that characters are quitting without any exploration. At least they could try the game instead of quitting out of boredom.

If they quit because of boredom, having all things possible in the game unlocked would not have changed their minds either. These people are not capable of creating thinking, of finding solutions to problems or obstacles. The game is not boring even with few SP, you just need know what you can do. Again, I use my own experience as absolute indicator here, and I had very little time left to feel boredom with all the flying around, doing missions, doing the tutorials, talking to people, figuring out things in the game, getting shot and getting things taught to me. And this was while I was in my starter corp and had no ambitions to join a PC. If you quit because of boredom, get your expectations right, depart from your "I am the center of the universe" metality and try again.


You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.

"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
#507 - 2015-10-14 16:50:10 UTC
The kind of creativity and motivation that I want to see in people does.

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.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#508 - 2015-10-14 17:00:48 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
The kind of creativity and motivation that I want to see in people does.

Then source that through studies. I'm sure figuring out how to instigate that level of motivation is really helpful for the game, but the ideas already posted seem to have the scientific "market" on developing interest. If these same ideas show "objective, inherent" processes, you are setting up "expectations" that you can't support.

"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
#509 - 2015-10-14 17:15:31 UTC
Do I really need to link your studies again? Do I really need to prove common sense and a bit of personal initiative and creativity with scientific studies? I do not think so.

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.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#510 - 2015-10-14 17:23:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Do I really need to link your studies again? Do I really need to prove common sense and a bit of personal initiative and creativity with scientific studies? I do not think so.

Correlation with these?
Dror wrote:
You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.


Of course, that's welcome.

"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
#511 - 2015-10-14 18:01:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Gratification in Video Games Read that again in the context of all the gratification that I listed above evaluating your rant quote messing. In particular page 217 is interesting in this regard and pay close attention to the parts Challenge, Competition, Social Interaction, to name some examples. I have listed several instances where SI plays a big role under the skill system. The same goes for Challenge, for example, with the Ore sale bit or the exploration of "unknown" space.

Or read this again, also under the premise of my examples above evaluating your rant quote mess. And pay very close attention to point 2 "Call It Motivation Not Addiction" and there in particular paragraph 2 and to a lesser extend paragraph 3. Paragraph 2 is particularly interesting for the skill system as skills obviously pose obstacles that you need to overcome. While you skill these obstacles, situations can and will arise that require you to intelligently, creatively search for solutions that go beyond "I cannot do that. I wait until later when I can do that." This is a different kind of creativity and intelligence, but it is important for people to learn to cope with hard obstacles and think about ways to alleviate or circumvent them.
Another interesting aspect of this piece is point 4 "How To Be A Social Butterfly". In my evaluation of your rant quote mess, I gave you also several examples about social interaction and how the skill system requires this kind of behavior not only to find something to do, but also how to be a productive member of the community you want to be a part of.
Oh, and as I just saw it: The source study of this Forbes piece also has another interesting aspect is "Emotional Benefits of Gaming" (page 71 et seqq.). Certainly, skills and their limitations can create some frustration among players, but it is all the more rewarding and creates positive sensations when you overcome these through your own ingenuity or with the help of others. In this regard, many EVE situations where skills limit you are comparable with puzzle games: you need to find a way to match things up, find a way through the maze of options and dead ends, etc, and once you do, you (should) feel accomplished, great. What this kind of limitation also teaches is that a roadblock is an encouragement to push against it, not give up and cry for help without having put in any effort. It is also an interesting aspect to deal with frustration (in case you feel such) and not rage quit, but to look for solutions.

So, yes, I imply that motivation and creativity can blossom and take place even under heavy restrictions. In fact, experience tells that they do even more so under such limitations as you are pushed against a wall, and most people do not like that. Just take ganking in High sec as example. SP-wise, a gank character is easy to set up, requires nothing but a couple of hours to train. Figuring out how to gank, where to gank, how to circumvent the punishing game mechanics against the victim or to help yourself have nothing to do with SP limitations, but with creativity and motivation in the face of harsh limitations.

*sigh*

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.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2015-10-14 18:45:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gratification in Video Games Read that again in the context of all the gratification that I listed above evaluating your rant quote messing. In particular page 217 is interesting in this regard and pay close attention to the parts Challenge, Competition, Social Interaction, to name some examples. I have listed several instances where SI plays a big role under the skill system. The same goes for Challenge, for example, with the Ore sale bit or the exploration of "unknown" space.

Directly from the challenge section:

Quote:
Many respondents also enjoy playing video games to push themselves to a higher level of skill or personal accomplishment. Some respondents said that the desire to solve the puzzles in order to get to the next level or beat the game can be addicting. Many of the players prefer to play a familiar set of games that they feel confident playing.

So, it could be negative if SP undermines personal skill, the idea of personal skill that could come from reshipping for an engagement (depth), and the confidence in the ship's capability?

Rivr Luzade wrote:
Or read this again, also under the premise of my examples above evaluating your rant quote mess. And pay very close attention to point 2 "Call It Motivation Not Addiction" and there in particular paragraph 2 and to a lesser extend paragraph 3. Paragraph 2 is particularly interesting for the skill system as skills obviously pose obstacles that you need to overcome. While you skill these obstacles, situations can and will arise that require you to intelligently, creatively search for solutions that go beyond "I cannot do that. I wait until later when I can do that." This is a different kind of creativity and intelligence, but it is important for people to learn to cope with hard obstacles and think about ways to alleviate or circumvent them.

You overestimate the amount of options for counters. Even more, only having t1-fit frigates is a very limited set of possibilities.

As well, just because SP provides a barrier is no implication that it has anything to do with incremental vs. innate paradigms (though there are options with no-SP, they still have to make ISK and master the niches).

Rivr Luzade wrote:
Another interesting aspect of this piece is point 4 "How To Be A Social Butterfly". In my evaluation of your rant quote mess, I gave you also several examples about social interaction and how the skill system requires this kind of behavior not only to find something to do, but also how to be a productive member of the community you want to be a part of.

Requiring fleets is more than promoting them. The former makes player skill seem an amount of worthless (the point is still that they should be rewarded for playing well, because that encourages confidence -- in the game design and in their undocking potential), but the latter comes inherently.

Rivr Luzade wrote:
Oh, and as I just saw it: The source study of this Forbes piece also has another interesting aspect is "Emotional Benefits of Gaming" (page 71 et seqq.). Certainly, skills and their limitations can create some frustration among players, but it is all the more rewarding and creates positive sensations when you overcome these through your own ingenuity or with the help of others. In this regard, many EVE situations where skills limit you are comparable with puzzle games: you need to find a way to match things up, find a way through the maze of options and dead ends, etc, and once you do, you (should) feel accomplished, great. What this kind of limitation also teaches is that a roadblock is an encouragement to push against it, not give up and cry for help without having put in any effort. It is also an interesting aspect to deal with frustration (in case you feel such) and not rage quit, but to look for solutions.

The basic idea is that video games are great (and thus played) for enhancing emotional states. Being competitive with maxed skills is enough of an issue. How much more negative is the possibility of attributing problems to skill points than is the simplicity of it being completely skillfulness-based? It's the same with links. It's an advantage the character has no control of -- "it must be a game problem". This is still romanticizes the amount of counters where, in fact, there are few or none. A linked fleet is faster, tankier, and more effective. It's really analogous.

"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
#513 - 2015-10-14 19:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Dror wrote:
So, it could be negative if SP undermines personal skill, the idea of personal skill that could come from reshipping for an engagement (depth), and the confidence in the ship's capability?

--

You overestimate the amount of options for counters. Even more, only having t1-fit frigates is a very limited set of possibilities.

As well, just because SP provides a barrier is no implication that it has anything to do with incremental vs. innate paradigms (though there are options with no-SP, they still have to make ISK and master the niches).

--

Requiring fleets is more than promoting them. The former makes player skill seem an amount of worthless (the point is still that they should be rewarded for playing well, because that encourages confidence -- in the game design and in their undocking potential), but the latter comes inherently.

--

The basic idea is that video games are great (and thus played) for enhancing emotional states. Being competitive with maxed skills is enough of an issue. How much more negative is the possibility of attributing problems to skill points than is the simplicity of it being completely skillfulness-based? It's the same with links. It's an advantage the character has no control of -- "it must be a game problem". This is still romanticizes the amount of counters where, in fact, there are few or none. A linked fleet is faster, tankier, and more effective. It's really analogous.

SP do not undermine personal skills, they require a different set of personal skills, the ones that I constantly mention; and the personal skills that you see are gradually unlocked, required and progressed into over time. I have given you examples for confidence that I experienced during my play time in EVE. If you continue to ignore them as "unfounded, opinionated or worthless thoughts", I cannot help you if you continue to fail to see what we are talking about.

Haven't you said a couple of pages back that initial, new player experiences have no or only limited effects on further gameplay and experience? I have experienced the mentioned experiences over a very long time, not just in my early days. And they became particularly rewarding in later stages. You furthermore put too much focus on T2 fittings. A T2 prop mod (even after the changes) is usually not required and a waste of money, T2 webs/scrams are very quickly trained into and the SP requirements to not pose any limitations, not to mention that meta web/scrams are usually the better option in order to have fitting room for tank or guns. T2 tank is also overrated in many circumstances and things like the AAR/ASB often give more HP than some T2 buffer tank. T2 rigs are overrated and a waste of money on anything that a new player can fly, regardless whether it was a capital or a frigate. Options are not limited. You impose limitations onto yourself by clinging to wrong expectations and demands.

Well, I gave more examples on social interaction than just fleets, but if you insist on this particular aspect to support your claim, I cannot help you. I also do not see worthlessness in fleets, in particular if one can apply some knowledge that you acquired earlier and manage to get someone tackled thanks to that knowledge or do not die to their fire because you spiraled in instead of burning straight towards them like your useless gang mate. This is playing well and has also little to do with SP. More SP certainly open up a couple more tools, but the inherent mechanics, tricks and techniques remain the same.

That may be the basic idea, but this just shows how your science is of limited applicability to EVE. In EVE, you are constantly subject to the potential of suffering detrimental experiences (ship loss, ISK loss, pod loss, pos loss, profit loss, manufacturing losses, time losses), be it due to your own actions or imposed onto you by actions of other people. You may want to play the game to have fun, but other people won't let you have fun if they get a chance. Receiving positive emotional responses from the game is but one aspect of the emotions that games create in players. Besides, as stated before, if you overcome the frustration as a result of a gank by tricking the gankers next time and successfully delivering a bait contract turns frustration into an accomplished, positive feeling. You get that feeling regardless of your SP count.
What exactly is the problem with characters being subjected to situations they have no control over? If nothing else, it gives them a valuable lesson that is also applicable outside of the game in their job, their family, their environment. In EVE, a ton of situations are out of your control and you can do nothing but react to them. Learn to deal with them. If you encounter the same people in a linked fleet several times, it should dawn to you that they always do that and there's no point in fighting them. Look for other targets, deny them activity. It is not that hard to get around things you do not like to cope with. I do not see the problem that you 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.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#514 - 2015-10-14 19:47:12 UTC
Dror wrote:

You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.


Yes, constraints can indeed lead to creativity, innovation and so forth. This is pretty well known.

"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
#515 - 2015-10-14 20:57:09 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:

You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.


Yes, constraints can indeed lead to creativity, innovation and so forth. This is pretty well known.

Here:
Quote:
Creativity-friendly constraints include (1) a clear problem definition with clear goals, like the specific challenges of on-line innovation competitions, or the Iron Chef “secret ingredient” constraints; and (2) a truly urgent, challenging need, like bringing the Apollo 13 astronauts safely back to earth. But intentionally strangling resources below a sufficient level, in a misguided effort to spur new thinking, will likely spawn only aborted attempts at innovation. The same goes for constraints that straightjacket the autonomy needed to passionately search for new solutions.

Japanese haiku, a lovely and time-honored art form, is full of tight constraints; the classic three-line poem must have five syllables, then seven syllables, then five more. But, because the form offers a clear and challenging set of parameters, and because there’s no scarcity of words in any language, creativity can blossom.


@ Rivr Luzade,
You hamfisted a bunch of possibly-correlated ideas and got blatantly told how they're inaccurate. If you'd honestly find objective value in explaining how a ship performing vastly sub-optimally, as it is with fresh characters, effects no learning or skillfulness potential, that would probably provide plenty of entertainment for the thread.

"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
#516 - 2015-10-14 23:50:53 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:

You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.


Yes, constraints can indeed lead to creativity, innovation and so forth. This is pretty well known.

Here:
[quote]Creativity-friendly constraints include (1) a clear problem definition with clear goals, like the specific challenges of on-line innovation competitions, or the Iron Chef “secret ingredient” constraints; and (2) a truly urgent, challenging need, like bringing the Apollo 13 astronauts safely back to earth. But intentionally strangling resources below a sufficient level, in a misguided effort to spur new thinking, will likely spawn only aborted attempts at innovation. The same goes for constraints that straightjacket the autonomy needed to passionately search for new solutions.


Or how about, "I don't have the skills to do X, I should find some other players and together we can accomplish X."

When Goons first came to the game, they were largely all low skill pilots (AFAIK) and yet as a group they made an impact early on...hence all the jokes about a million rifters.


"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
#517 - 2015-10-15 01:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:

You're trying to imply that motivation and creativity naturally thrive through ineffective stats and locked game exploration. You're trying to imply that getting buddies in to an immensely gated game is some sort of probability.


Yes, constraints can indeed lead to creativity, innovation and so forth. This is pretty well known.

Here:
[quote]Creativity-friendly constraints include (1) a clear problem definition with clear goals, like the specific challenges of on-line innovation competitions, or the Iron Chef “secret ingredient” constraints; and (2) a truly urgent, challenging need, like bringing the Apollo 13 astronauts safely back to earth. But intentionally strangling resources below a sufficient level, in a misguided effort to spur new thinking, will likely spawn only aborted attempts at innovation. The same goes for constraints that straightjacket the autonomy needed to passionately search for new solutions.


Or how about, "I don't have the skills to do X, I should find some other players and together we can accomplish X."

When Goons first came to the game, they were largely all low skill pilots (AFAIK) and yet as a group they made an impact early on...hence all the jokes about a million rifters.



That's an overemphasis of the probability of socializing. Traditionally with MMOs, that comes more through the leveling process and endgame content and PvP. Yet, there's no real initiative for those leveling to find a group ordinarily. Multiple characters leveling together is rarely found nor requested. Why is that!? Maybe the content just isn't that challenging. Yet in EVE, doesn't some 85% of fresh subs PvP absolutely none at all? There's no reason to imply that they should be pushed in to a corp just to enjoy the game. They should just find the game interesting and diverse and deep. I don't find a group to learn an instrument -- I pick it up and play. I don't check around for a mastermind group to philosophize about EVE design -- I read and watch about motivation, almost exclusively about it, because of how obvious and comprehensive the information is.

"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
#518 - 2015-10-15 05:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dror wrote:


snip due to quote limitations....



Sounds like denial to me....the point still remains. the lack of SP can lead to players coming together to overcome their lack of SP.

Sorry Dror, for all your posts, I just don't find them compelling. And given your own pimping of your own view point vs. trying to find fault with your view point, I find your position anti-evidence, anti-science, and anti-reason and nothing more than pushing a personal agenda.

In short, you are a hack who should be on everybody's ignore list.

"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
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#519 - 2015-10-15 09:30:53 UTC
Dror wrote:

...doesn't some 85% of fresh subs PvP absolutely none at all...?


Perhaps those 85% don't actually like PvP combat and are in EvE for the large number of other activities instead...

Dror wrote:

I don't find a group to learn an instrument -- I pick it up and play. I don't check around for a mastermind group to philosophize about EVE design -- I read and watch about motivation, almost exclusively about it, because of how obvious and comprehensive the information is.


And in learning Jeet Kune Do I find working with a group of others to be entirely essential. Different skill and activities require different methods of learning and engagement. One size does not and never can fit all for learning a skill.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#520 - 2015-10-15 12:05:58 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:


snip due to quote limitations....



Sounds like denial to me....the point still remains. the lack of SP can lead to players coming together to overcome their lack of SP.

Sorry Dror, for all your posts, I just don't find them compelling. And given your own pimping of your own view point vs. trying to find fault with your view point, I find your position anti-evidence, anti-science, and anti-reason and nothing more than pushing a personal agenda.

In short, you are a hack who should be on everybody's ignore list.

Just because you imagine fresh subs to find players because of limitations they find negative is no "evidence" that this is how it plays. The point obviously doesn't still remain -- that's the cool part about getting a reply with statistics and very straightforward logic. If you'd recall, I'm the one posting science and correlating the same ideas as the development company -- for the benefit of the game.

Thereof, if characters are taking a gander at processing efficiency, imagining the whole of the game to be like this, and nope-ing out -- getting them in corps is much less than what's necessary for keeping them interested in a spaceship game that doesn't give them performance effectiveness, spaceships, nor efficient production.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:

...doesn't some 85% of fresh subs PvP absolutely none at all...?


Perhaps those 85% don't actually like PvP combat and are in EvE for the large number of other activities instead...

Dror wrote:

I don't find a group to learn an instrument -- I pick it up and play. I don't check around for a mastermind group to philosophize about EVE design -- I read and watch about motivation, almost exclusively about it, because of how obvious and comprehensive the information is.


And in learning Jeet Kune Do I find working with a group of others to be entirely essential. Different skill and activities require different methods of learning and engagement. One size does not and never can fit all for learning a skill.

Again.. quite the generalization. Martial arts are one of the few activities that are set up as a group learning activity. Yet, even then -- it's still just in a classroom with others, following an instructor. It's not sparring nor relying on others until much later.

"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.