EVE Information Portal

Please dont take this the wrong way that was very informative and a good read but didnt actually say why a player would stay any length of time if a core mechanic of the game was such a problem they would continue to play for anything upto 12 years .

If this change was to happen there is a few, admittly edge cases, to consider

1) Removes the only real penality for rich player (either in or out of game) to flying a T3

2) Tournaments implications :
a) Basically become mandatory to have a maxed out character for what you are planning flying.
You could agree this is already available in the character bazaar, and to a degree it is, but to a very different supply profile. There are only so many perfect at flying X with fit y characters available at a given time. But with this mechanic (admittely at a cost) there is all the character available to allow me to fly x with fit y perfectly.
b) As tournament and meta changes team would stockpile SP packs to ensure they could fly everything in short order to meet the meta.

KIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=h-jfvjMoe9Y&list=PLQvKSs1k6DLOiGGb44McruXcndTtzUUlu#t=1002
Because theirs ships blown up and they will seeking for revange

You know, the thing that both amuses/worries me in equal measure is that it's obvious that a great many of the proponents both here and on reddit (and boy are they militant over there) have absolutely no idea even how it works, how the abuse cases can be manufactured trivially, how likely this is to be done by old players.

What there are, however, are seas of people who stand to profit and genuine newbies who think the voices against this are just old dinosaurs trying to keep them down.

This is going to be like freighter rigs, like crimewatch, trollceptors, like a million other changes - the loudest voices can't see past their own din to understand how this will be turned around and that they will be put to the sword by the very mechanic they clamor for. When the old guard advise caution or that it is a bad idea, out come the rabbling pitchforks and they are drowned out by sheer weight of noise.

Then 6 months later, the same bloody people come crying about the mechanics they kicked, screamed for and well damnit just downright DEMANDED be put into place.

If you let this genie from the bottle, there is no getting it back in. None. It's going to create a metashift like allowing a second ball on the pitch on your game of choice.

The 2 markets will be closely tied together. A TSP will cost about 1/4 plex maximum. Maybe less, never more.

the difference between games like diablo 3 and eve are that the only thing to do in those games is grind gear. if all there were to do in eve was grind skills then all you'd do is set a skill queue and never log in. you can't say "if i start with all the gear in d3 i won't play"... no **** you've exhausted all of it's content.

accumulating SP isn't the only thing to do in eve, unlike diablo where the only thing to do is grind for gear. this is why elite dangerous was such a terrible game - it offers nothing to do but grind for the sake of grinding (there isn't even anything to spend money on except to grind money faster).

you're comparing apples to oranges.

Another option for skill extraction would be to extract a skill, rather than raw skill points. This would mean that certain SP (Engineering 5) are more valuable than others (Mining 5). The extracted skills would effectively become skill books with non-0 skill level.

Thus the benefit to the player selling the skills comes at the cost of losing a skill that is actually valuable, rather than whichever useless skill they've got the implants and neural remap set to train the fastest.

I'd still prefer removing SP altogether.

Remove attribs from game, have it so all skills train as if you have +30 to all
Uncouple frigate / destroyer / cruiser / battlecruiser / battleship lockins - Dont have to work up the chain
Uncouple Missles as above
Uncouple Guns as above
all T2 variants should still be skill governed

If the skillpoint monster is to go ahead then i dont think you should cannibalize any form of player or let it be governed by the players as there is so many ways it could be abused, which just leaves it for CCP to sell TSP for a pre determined figure.

EDIT: Im really against that last part but i'd rather it be that way than what could happen in game.

Seems Dave's got this one lined up. Really getting the benefit of motivation research comes from checking out exactly what science defines as motivational. Through that picture, the ideas are basically mastery, inter-relatedness, and freedom. So, here's a critique on WoW for example. It probably requires no explaining, but the game's problems include everything being linear and predictable and shallow because it's just sorta getting a few sets of gear until the instanced content is completed, with the remainder of the game providing basically nothing.

A neat idea coming up on some forums is that WoW could really benefit from sandbox gameplay. If gear would become irreversibly worthless as a consequence of poor play or overwhelming odds, there's so much room for interesting gear affixes and for designing further engagement through this. The game can keep its instanced content and its arena PvP, but giving the community something to do in the fields is a reason to come play. This, obviously, has the benefit of requiring crafted replacements, and that sets up a whole economy. This also completes what's shown with intrinsic motivation -- mastering the map control for resources.. or the positioning for controlling engagement, the choice of multiple gear affixes and gameplay styles (e.g., mobility and buffs through the multiple crafting professions), and the cohesion of the market and its requirements.

So, the problem with EVE, with this same idea, is just that the depth is completely inaccessible, and this scales completely throughout the game. This is about reasons to log in and play. If subs can't be competitive with ores and refinement, why? They should -- it's why they're here. If they feel like adventuring through the development of ships, modules, and innovations, that's completely within the game's parameters to supply. In fact, with completely trusting very established ideas of this motivation theory, there's absolutely no reason for SP -- and every reason for its inexistence. If it's providing nothing for our explanation of motivation, it's just preventing.. initiative and creativity and diversity and exploration and stories, thus sub and referral potential.

Thereof, gaming is played for feeling competitive.. especially for outplaying those in the sub's crew (for everything in which they're interested).


The truth of commonality shows a very clear path to interesting design. It'd be great getting some criticisms on the idea.

I think this SP trading idea is terrible, and I was shocked to read that dev blog.

Having a long standing character myself, the accumulated skill points (which at present) can only be obtained through subscription time has a big value to me. It's something which can't be taken away or made less valuable. I could lose all my in game assets and ISK but my skill points would remain. It's the one single thing which will stop me from ever cancelling my subscription should I get bored of the game.

I am however open to the idea of using the proposed system to exchange skill points within the same character. The skill "packets" would be character locked or not be an item at all. This system could be used to exchange skill points from unwanted skills into wanted ones, without changing the skill point total at all. This would of course still need to be limited as proposed, else the years of carefully planned skill training in eve-mon would have been a waste of time.

If all else fails and the original crazy idea goes ahead, at least place a hard cap on the consumption of these packets so they can't be used past 80 mil SP or something.