These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4561 - 2015-10-23 13:47:51 UTC
Metal Hunter wrote:
What will be farther? Extraction of SP from the taken capsule will be the following step?
It is inflated бубль, the capsule under a grid and the special module installed by the ship takes at the caught victim of SP. Maximum quantities of SP 500 000 for an injection.

Водка, балалайка, медведь, Путин.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4562 - 2015-10-23 13:48:51 UTC
gascanu wrote:
...

so you played a solo game in A MASSIVE MULTIPLAYER game, for about 3 years, and give your example as a successful one? i'm really sry for you...
first you say "you cannot tell another person what kind of game they like" and then you go and tell how others should play; if, by now, you cannot understand how a faster training until you reach a certain point it's beneficial for the game, there is no point in explaining it to you again


Where did I say I've played the game solo? I feel sorry for your assumption gland being so overworked.

I did not tell anyone how to play the game, I stated how I have played the game and never once been hindered by SP. I also pointed out that there is much more to the game than just PvP combat, many areas of which will be heavily affected by people being able to just buy there way in.

Faster training is not beneficial to the game, it is beneficial to those who will be able to afford to use the proposed mechanism which will not be new players. It is to the detriment of everything else in game in my opinion.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4563 - 2015-10-23 13:50:23 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...
Rek Seven
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4564 - 2015-10-23 13:59:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rek Seven
Dror wrote:
Rek Seven wrote:
Dror wrote:

At what point is it OK to stop giving free SP? 10M that can be completely re-oriented however? Then, their only experience with further queueing is completely uninteresting trains?


When to stop giving out SP would be down to CCP to decide. Ideally it would be based on stats only ccp have that show how long the average player takes to get "hooked".

Additional i think all players should get free SP on their characters birthday. New players should get it after playing the game for a month past their trial account. This would:

1. Help new players become "useful" to their chosen corp, faster
2. Reward long term/loyal players
3. Help returning players experience new content quicker.

Dror wrote:
If you're implying they would get bored with a no-SP game, how can you support SP at all?


That didn't make any sense. It's like saying "If you think apples are nutritious, how can you support the eating of apples?"... I already explained why I feel EVEs training system adds value.

Because you obviously can't be saying that SP actually keeps fresh subs interested. That's like saying that the door makes me enjoy being in my house. Like, nah, it's warm and great.

So, if you're implying a no-SP game is boring, you're just implying the game is boring. SP is no feature worth advertising, nor is it ever advertised -- just like WoW doesn't advertise its leveling process. It develops an uninteresting playing field and removes the majority of options (and thus a huge demographic of characters) from actually improving the game.


You don't half talk rubbish mate. As you didn't dispute anything i just said, i'll assume you agree with my proposal.

You coming on here arguing that SP should be removed from the game is stupid and wouldn't work in eve... So i don't even know what you're doing here.

To use your silly door analogy. If you live in a rough neighbourhood or a place with a cold environment, you may need to do some research and select the correct door for the job. However, you are not forced to do this and you are also limited by your means (money). If you are too lazy to invest time in selecting the right option or can't afford the right door, you are either going to get burgled or the cold will get in... This is how the skill selection works in eve.

... I fear writing that dumb paragraph i just wrote has brought me down to your level, so I'm not talking to you any more, to preserve what little self respect i have left. Straight

The wishlist is pretty much complete...
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4565 - 2015-10-23 14:06:00 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
And I disgree with that view as we are all motivated by different things. You cannot whitewash over the arguments of everyone here who is aganist this proposal by telling us that we all think the same and have the same motivations. That is clearly untrue.

That's you making a claim, which should be supported with more than anecdote. CCP says that they'd like to [objectively] switch over to an intrinsic reward system, which is [objectively] more motivating, creativity-inducing, etc. That's all included in the NPE videos.

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
I already pointed out that Halo etc are simplified versions of the gating system we have in EvE so. Of course the skill ssytem is progression, you guide your character by making choices and open up other options in game available to you. Of course you may think this is only important to those of us who are more RP minded but many disagree and also to discount that area of the player base is stupid.

Limiting progression unfairly (nothing to do with gameplay and actual skillfulness, for example) is helpful? Please, then, show us a study that says having an unequal opportunity to do well increases, say, sub loyalty?

Oh, this study says it's actually the opposite:

Quote:
One strategy found that giving players more control and ownership of their character increased loyalty [to the game]. The second strategy showed that gamers who played cooperatively and worked with other gamers in "guilds" built loyalty and social identity.

To build a player's feeling of ownership towards its character, game makers should provide equal opportunities for any character to win a battle.

So, if you're done strawman'ing, maybe you'd like to admit that you have nothing to say about the objective definitions of motivation. Also, progression in EVE is micro-transaction based. SP, as is, only comes through a sub. It cheapens the experience and provides power to those who can pay (through PLEX) over those who can't -- even if that advantage is just "more fun"..

Do you make sure the drive to work is unnecessarily ludicrous so that work seems more fulfilling?[/quote]

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Fun comes from the individual, it comes from what they enjoy in game and neither you or any other person can define what any individual will find fun.

There are basics, and to try to refute that is to try to refute established theories. You're shallowly implying that your bit of anecdote is more authoritative than research. The information is everywhere, and (as stated) even CCP discusses it.

"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.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4566 - 2015-10-23 14:21:22 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Faster training is not beneficial to the game, it is beneficial to those who will be able to afford to use the proposed mechanism which will not be new players.

I have no words for you.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4567 - 2015-10-23 14:30:31 UTC
Dror wrote:

That's you making a claim, which should be supported with more than anecdote. CCP says that they'd like to [objectively] switch over to an intrinsic reward system, which is [objectively] more motivating, creativity-inducing, etc. That's all included in the NPE videos.


CCP states unequiviocally that SP are an intrinsic and important part of the game. No amount of arguing from you changes that simple fact.

Dror wrote:

Limiting progression unfairly (nothing to do with gameplay and actual skillfulness, for example) is helpful? Please, then, show us a study that says having an unequal opportunity to do well increases, say, sub loyalty?

Please list games where there is not some kind of gating and/or progression mechanism involved in the design. Then list those that do.

Quote:
One strategy found that giving players more control and ownership of their character increased loyalty [to the game]. The second strategy showed that gamers who played cooperatively and worked with other gamers in "guilds" built loyalty and social identity.

To build a player's feeling of ownership towards its character, game makers should provide equal opportunities for any character to win a battle.


Lets examine this in the case of SP. Players in EvE have complete control over the direction their chracter trains in and this continues whther you are logged in or not. You can change that direction at any time. During this time an Eve player tends to become invested in that character due to the effort required to create the specific skillset chosen. It is unique to that character and formed purely buy the player choices made.

Within Eve every player can and eventually will train up exactly the same level of skills in any given hull or task as any other player. This means that two players following a training plan that has them both flying assault frigates with tech II mods/guns will be on an exactly even playing field even if onw player has 20 mil total SP and the other player has 200 mil total SP. This of course ignores the fact that PvP combat in EvE is entirely based around creating unequal opportunities to win a battle via ship selection, mod selection and friend selection.

All of that would fit very very well with the quote you provided.

You also keep mentioning fun, please do give us a definitive description of fun. One that covers everyones activities in game. Something we can really agree on so that we have a true measure of fun.

Do you make sure the drive to work is unnecessarily ludicrous so that work seems more fulfilling?[/quote]

No, I plan ahead and also have alternative routes to make sure I achieve my goal

Dror wrote:
... The information is everywhere, and (as stated) even CCP discusses it.


Interesting how you quote CCP discussion here yet completely ignore the statement made by CCP Rise about the importance of SP and skills in the game.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4568 - 2015-10-23 14:31:43 UTC
General Lootit wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Faster training is not beneficial to the game, it is beneficial to those who will be able to afford to use the proposed mechanism which will not be new players.

I have no words for you.


Handy, means I don't have to listen to them then...
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4569 - 2015-10-23 14:34:45 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...
or 'less than I currently have, as I am looking forward to cashing in on unnecessary SP'

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Dave Stark
#4570 - 2015-10-23 14:37:36 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...
or 'less than I currently have, as I am looking forward to cashing in on unnecessary SP'


or "that entirely depends upon what i want to do".

1.5m is more than enough for PI, but is **** all for a capital pilot.
General Lootit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4571 - 2015-10-23 14:37:44 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
General Lootit wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Faster training is not beneficial to the game, it is beneficial to those who will be able to afford to use the proposed mechanism which will not be new players.

I have no words for you.


Handy, means I don't have to listen to them then...

I'm apologize for my reply but I'm quite tired from repeating myselfe.

Main source of concerns and side effects

Typical loyal customer with eleventy accounts
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4572 - 2015-10-23 14:42:49 UTC
General Lootit wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
General Lootit wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:

Faster training is not beneficial to the game, it is beneficial to those who will be able to afford to use the proposed mechanism which will not be new players.

I have no words for you.


Handy, means I don't have to listen to them then...

I'm apologize for my reply but I'm quite tired from repeating myselfe.


No apology required, I'm not so insensitive that I can't take banter :D

I think that is part of the problem in the thread though. We are all now arguing around the same points with the same rebuttals. It now needs some feedback from CCP as to their view and what they plan to do. This was supposed to be about exploring the idea and I think most points have probably been covered by now.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4573 - 2015-10-23 14:44:53 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...
or 'less than I currently have, as I am looking forward to cashing in on unnecessary SP'


That's a point, those PvP combat only pilots who can fly all the ships they already want to can with this idea just keep selling the additional SP from their subscription time to fund their very narrow area of gameplay. Wouldn't be such a bad thing if it didn't come from seriously messing with one of the core areas of the game.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4574 - 2015-10-23 14:52:32 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...
or 'less than I currently have, as I am looking forward to cashing in on unnecessary SP'


That's a point, those PvP combat only pilots who can fly all the ships they already want to can with this idea just keep selling the additional SP from their subscription time to fund their very narrow area of gameplay. Wouldn't be such a bad thing if it didn't come from seriously messing with one of the core areas of the game.
Consider it's by no means and 'all or nothing' not a 'now or never' choice. The proposed system will be very flexible.

For example, I have 3 accounts:

. A main, PVP focused, which probably I'd keep skilling up normally
. A first alt account focused on industry and trading. On this account, I have no major use for additional SP, the 3 chars work perfectly for what I want to do with them. I could easily choose to sell all of this account's monthly SP to make it pay for itself
. A second alt account with a cap pilot, that I'll certainly skill up. I could also choose to use the first alt account's SP to train faster (main char of this account is around 30Mil SP)


I see this proposal simply as a way to allow SP-rich players trade with SP-poor players, for everyone's benefit (the former make some ISK, the latter get some SP).

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4575 - 2015-10-23 14:54:15 UTC
Replies emboldened:

Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Dror wrote:

That's you making a claim, which should be supported with more than anecdote. CCP says that they'd like to [objectively] switch over to an intrinsic reward system, which is [objectively] more motivating, creativity-inducing, etc. That's all included in the NPE videos.


CCP states unequiviocally that SP are an intrinsic and important part of the game. No amount of arguing from you changes that simple fact.

Appeal to authority.

Dror wrote:

Limiting progression unfairly (nothing to do with gameplay and actual skillfulness, for example) is helpful? Please, then, show us a study that says having an unequal opportunity to do well increases, say, sub loyalty?

Please list games where there is not some kind of gating and/or progression mechanism involved in the design. Then list those that do.

Appeal to tradition. For the sake of furthering the conversation, here.

Quote:
One strategy found that giving players more control and ownership of their character increased loyalty [to the game]. The second strategy showed that gamers who played cooperatively and worked with other gamers in "guilds" built loyalty and social identity.

To build a player's feeling of ownership towards its character, game makers should provide equal opportunities for any character to win a battle.


Lets examine this in the case of SP. Players in EvE have complete control over the direction their chracter trains in and this continues whther you are logged in or not. You can change that direction at any time. During this time an Eve player tends to become invested in that character due to the effort required to create the specific skillset chosen. It is unique to that character and formed purely buy the player choices made.

If SP is so interesting for character development, why is fresh sub retention supposedly so low? Gameplay (depth, accessibility, progression, diversity..) is principal. It's sort of what the game is being judged over..

Within Eve every player can and eventually will train up exactly the same level of skills in any given hull or task as any other player. This means that two players following a training plan that has them both flying assault frigates with tech II mods/guns will be on an exactly even playing field even if onw player has 20 mil total SP and the other player has 200 mil total SP. This of course ignores the fact that PvP combat in EvE is entirely based around creating unequal opportunities to win a battle via ship selection, mod selection and friend selection.

..Which should be ignored. Most engagements with equal SP have an equal opportunity through planning, strategy, logistics, and plenty of other mechanics. Ordinarily, engaging a fleet is purely by choice. If you're arguing that newbies have equal opportunity -- well, you're not. So, you're submitting to the research that SP is at least a bit unhelpful?

All of that would fit very very well with the quote you provided.

You also keep mentioning fun, please do give us a definitive description of fun. One that covers everyones activities in game. Something we can really agree on so that we have a true measure of fun.

-- Dror wrote:
"Do you make sure the drive to work is unnecessarily ludicrous so that work seems more fulfilling?"
--

No, I plan ahead and also have alternative routes to make sure I achieve my goal

SP basically takes away the car (and technically the jobs) away from fresh characters and expects them to both have livelihood and be interested in it. "The game relies on very non-PvP methods of making ISK (for countering exploitation), so the idea that PvP should somehow sustain gameplay interest is unfeasible. Thus, limiting the other playstyles (as a design philosophy) is completely counter-productive." That includes industry. SP makes the game have "reduced content", and if WoW or SWG are any tell, "lack of content" is the most obvious and common reason for unsubs.

Dror wrote:
... The information is everywhere, and (as stated) even CCP discusses it.


Interesting how you quote CCP discussion here yet completely ignore the statement made by CCP Rise about the importance of SP and skills in the game.
I'm pretty sure an appeal to science is no logical fallacy. Maybe if it didn't seem like that statement was just damage control on how awful SP can seem for new players.. or even as a comforting sentiment to veterans, it would seem more relevant.

"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.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#4576 - 2015-10-23 14:56:13 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
...Consider it's by no means and 'all or nothing' not a 'now or never' choice. The proposed system will be very flexible.

For example, I have 3 accounts:

. A main, PVP focused, which probably I'd keep skilling up normally
. A first alt account focused on industry and trading. On this account, I have no major use for additional SP, the 3 chars work perfectly for what I want to do with them. I could easily choose to sell all of this account's monthly SP to make it pay for itself
. A second alt account with a cap pilot, that I'll certainly skill up. I could also choose to use the first alt account's SP to train faster (main char of this account is around 30Mil SP)


I see this proposal simply as a way to allow SP-rich players trade with SP-poor players, for everyone's benefit (the former make some ISK, the latter get some SP).


I can see how that works when you are using your SP among your own existing accounts but as soon as something becomes a commodity it will be gamed by those in the market with the power to do so. This will not benefit new players unless having them pay lots of extra cash to play (as they will feel they have to if they can afford it) or having them grind for isk instead is beneficial to them. I don't believe it is.
Raz Xym
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#4577 - 2015-10-23 14:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Raz Xym
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how many skill points are considered 'enough' to be able to play the game properly?


for those supporting this proposal the answer would be 'more than I currently have'...


I support this proposal, and I expect to never use it. Sure there are always things to train, but after a while, for me, it just becomes where do I want that final 2%. And since I am not a huge min/max guy, that last 2% is not all that important to me.

Since we have always been able to buy skill points (via character bazaar) I am not sure of the issue. It really must be that it will be more apparent that you can buy skill points, where before it was "hidden" under a forum thread?

I know many people will not even think about the game, because they feel there is no way to catch up to the vets. This might help change their mind? Even though many corps will find a spot for most any pilot, many seem to feel they are not contributing unless they can fly a certain ship.

Is it all sunshine and lolipops? Nope. There are some real issues. I do agree with many it sort of diminishes the dedication many vets have had. Many have trained for years, carefully mapping attributes, sticking to these maps until one's ready to pull the rest of their hair out. But again, one could just buy a character from the bazaar and bypass all this.

I just hope we attract more permanent players.
TomParad0x
RogueNET
#4578 - 2015-10-23 15:00:42 UTC  |  Edited by: TomParad0x
Doubting replying to a 200 page thread will be of much benefit, but here it is.


I've played since 2004, and I honestly don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, to me personally I feel like I would like this, I could trash some stupid stuff I trained on this character (wasted SP) and actually do something with it.

But on the level of the whole game I'm honestly not sure how I feel. The intent of this is not to help new players "catch up", because new players would either have to buy the SP via PLEX, or somehow make the isk these will cost to buy in game. I don't really feel like the character bazaar needs help.

I don't think this would ruin the game, as others have said we can already buy SP.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#4579 - 2015-10-23 15:09:00 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
You also keep mentioning fun, please do give us a definitive description of fun. One that covers everyones activities in game. Something we can really agree on so that we have a true measure of fun.

OK.

Dror wrote:
There are plenty of definitions of fun through motivation. If you won't look that up, none of it comes from SP as a system -- but playing well, being valuable as a character, and exploring. Fitting a frigate effectively is more fun than t1 nonsense-fittings because of SP. Getting plenty of content from no arbitrary limitations (and thus more newbie effectiveness) is fun for all, from the newbies and veterans learning and instructing, through the increased strategy from increased, actual skill.


Fun is..
Dror wrote:
A fair playing field that doesn't require microtransactions to progress.

Maybe a decent counter-question would be why games like MMOs are played over games like chess or Tetris -- depth, yeah? So why artificially limit that depth with a pay wall -- how is that helpful for sub retention or the level of strategy in the game? Starter corps can't infiltrate sov with frigates. So, a decent hypothesis is that if something limits depth and progression, it can't also benefit it, yeah? If a mechanic worsens a game, it can't really embetter it?

"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.
Levi Belvar
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#4580 - 2015-10-23 15:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Levi Belvar
Dror wrote:
Limiting progression unfairly (nothing to do with gameplay and actual skillfulness, for example) is helpful? Please, then, show us a study that says having an unequal opportunity to do well increases, say, sub loyalty?

Oh, this study says it's actually the opposite:


If your basing your logic on pure empirical analysis of the data in the study you quote here then its flawed as it doesnt list the games involved - it mixes free 2 play and sub based games as stated in the article.

Seeing as it refers to "Guilds" we take it that one could be WoW and another Guild wars 2, You chose to play the sandbox design and all it means. If you then want to bring it down to there levels of playstyles instanced - Dungeons - Raids where you can match players abilities on there levels to make it equal then where is the sandbox. Are you pertaining to say for instance that C1 - 2-5 mill skillpoints C-2 5 - 10 mill skillpoints. These games rewards are also based on player level all the way through to endgame content, You now asking for that ilvl680 weapon / armour to be equated to ships, there you go you completed AE 1-5 Have a raven.

PvP is also by level 10/19 20/29 30/39 So you want to alter the standard of this game based on matched levels of others,These games are equal by a level design could you see a level 10 is scratching a level 100. I refer again this is a sandbox.

They get afforded more opportunities, we can all mine, create/craft explore/wander in circles join guilds/corps from the moment you enter the games.

Your 5% retention giving 25% - 95% profit is also skewed at best as i say, your study mixes free2play with a sub base.

“Stupidity and wisdom meet in the same centre of sentiment and resolution, in the suffering of human accidents.”