These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Unbiased Criticisms for the Game
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2015-10-23 14:10:08 UTC
This thread is completely biased toward skill points, please change title.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2015-10-23 14:12:46 UTC
Dror wrote:
progression in EVE is already 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?


So...........this thread is about whining because games cost money to produce and the player must bear part of the responsibility for paying that cost through purchasing the game and/or access to the server, through a sub and/or value-added sales?

Maybe checkers is a good game for you -- you can play that completely for free by drawing a board out on a table and using different colored rocks.
Bobb Bobbington
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#63 - 2015-10-23 14:17:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bobb Bobbington
Dror, I have a counter-question for you.

Why do people play chess?

Eve is basically chess in space, except that it's infinitely more complicated and intricate. We pay for this intricacy with 15$ a month. Chess doesn't have linear progression, and doesn't appeal to most people. But some people still play it, because the strategy and challenge of an intellectual contest between individuals is their version of fun. A new player would have a tough time beating an older player, because they have more knowledge of moves and strategies of the game, but a new player can learn, adapt their own strategies, develop their playing style, etc, just like SP in Eve. But a smart new player who has learned better strategies and skills can still beat an older player with worse techniques in both worlds.

This is a signature.

It has a 25m signature.

No it's not a cosmic signature.

Probably.

Btw my corp's recruiting.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2015-10-23 14:27:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
progression in EVE is already 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?


So...........this thread is about whining because games cost money to produce and the player must bear part of the responsibility for paying that cost through purchasing the game and/or access to the server, through a sub and/or value-added sales?

Maybe checkers is a good game for you -- you can play that completely for free by drawing a board out on a table and using different colored rocks.


"Guys, a subscription sandbox game should arbitrarily limit its content, really!"

Bobb Bobbington wrote:
Dror, I have a counter-question for you.

Why do people play chess?

Eve is basically chess in space, except that it's infinitely more complicated and intricate. We pay for this intricacy with 15$ a month. Chess doesn't have linear progression, and doesn't appeal to most people. But some people still play it, because the strategy and challenge of an intellectual contest between individuals is their version of fun.

It's a fair playing field that doesn't require microtransactions to progress. That seems like a thorough enough answer for the question.

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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2015-10-23 14:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Thierry Orlenard
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
progression in EVE is already 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?


So...........this thread is about whining because games cost money to produce and the player must bear part of the responsibility for paying that cost through purchasing the game and/or access to the server, through a sub and/or value-added sales?

Maybe checkers is a good game for you -- you can play that completely for free by drawing a board out on a table and using different colored rocks.


"Guys, a subscription sandbox game should arbitrarily limit its content, really!"

Bobb Bobbington wrote:
Dror, I have a counter-question for you.

Why do people play chess?

Eve is basically chess in space, except that it's infinitely more complicated and intricate. We pay for this intricacy with 15$ a month. Chess doesn't have linear progression, and doesn't appeal to most people. But some people still play it, because the strategy and challenge of an intellectual contest between individuals is their version of fun.

It's a fair playing field that doesn't require microtransactions to progress. That seems like a thorough enough answer for the question.

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?



So please tell how these games are supposed to pay for themselves.

Tell exactly how a linear progression system where the player is literally locked into Point A -------------------------> Point B in a limited selected of, say, five "classes" of what to play, is more befitting of a sandbox game than a skill point system where the player can choose what he wants to do, and when; and pick goals and strive towards them.

But really, I'm most interested to hear how game developers and publishers are supposed to pay for what they do if you don't like the sub or PLEX systems.
Bobb Bobbington
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#66 - 2015-10-23 14:34:58 UTC
But the 'walls' to "keep you from content" are the enemy's chess pieces! It's our job to tear down the walls, break the barriers, and checkmate the players and devs who have put them in place and have the advantage of SP and knowledge of the game!

This is a signature.

It has a 25m signature.

No it's not a cosmic signature.

Probably.

Btw my corp's recruiting.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2015-10-23 14:59:33 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
So please tell how these games are supposed to pay for themselves.

Tell exactly how a linear progression system where the player is literally locked into Point A -------------------------> Point B in a limited selected of, say, five "classes" of what to play, is more befitting of a sandbox game than a skill point system where the player can choose what he wants to do, and when; and pick goals and strive towards them.

But really, I'm most interested to hear how game developers and publishers are supposed to pay for what they do if you don't like the sub or PLEX systems.

It's still a sub game, and without SP, characters could PLEX for whatever their interest is. The cool part about standards is that PLEXing for gameplay is the rarity. There's enough depth with the game to experience it before paying a bunch of money for something, without any clue if that's entertaining.

Bobb Bobbington wrote:
But the 'walls' to "keep you from content" are the enemy's chess pieces! It's our job to tear down the walls, break the barriers, and checkmate the players and devs who have put them in place and have the advantage of SP and knowledge of the game!

False equivalency. The walls to "keep you from content"? SP. The chess pieces aren't preventing me from having all my pieces to start the game.

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2015-10-23 15:10:34 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
So please tell how these games are supposed to pay for themselves.

Tell exactly how a linear progression system where the player is literally locked into Point A -------------------------> Point B in a limited selected of, say, five "classes" of what to play, is more befitting of a sandbox game than a skill point system where the player can choose what he wants to do, and when; and pick goals and strive towards them.

But really, I'm most interested to hear how game developers and publishers are supposed to pay for what they do if you don't like the sub or PLEX systems.

It's still a sub game, and without SP, characters could PLEX for whatever their interest is. The cool part about standards is that PLEXing for gameplay is the rarity. There's enough depth with the game to experience it before paying a bunch of money for something, without any clue if that's entertaining.


That is an extremely vague answer.
What do you mean by "standards"? What do you mean by "PLEX for whatever their interest is"? Sounds like you have a whole new system in mind; however, taking such an idea as I am doing, it doesn't seem to me that a SP system would have anything to do with whether it could work or not. The "PLEX" concept works with and without the skillpoint system.

As for "There's enough depth with the game to experience it before paying a bunch of money for something, without any clue if that's entertaining."
Yes? And? That's why this game and nearly every other provide free trials, right? Am I missing something? EVE's is actually a lot longer and less limited that some others that I am aware of.

You've really got to be more clear. You need to lay out exactly what you want and stop talking so much theory. This isn't your freshman art school game design class.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2015-10-23 15:17:13 UTC
So it's all about ethics in skill points?
Cidanel Afuran
Grant Village
#70 - 2015-10-23 15:17:19 UTC
Dror wrote:
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?


As I said in the last thread like this you started (how many times are you going to beat this same dead horse?) EVE is a hobby, not a game. Stop comparing it to other MMOs. I get it. You want a themepark spaceship MMO. That isn't EVE, never was, never will be. Stop repeatedly making these threads.

Reported thread for redundancy.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#71 - 2015-10-23 15:28:21 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
That is an extremely vague answer.
What do you mean by "standards"? What do you mean by "PLEX for whatever their interest is"? Sounds like you have a whole new system in mind; however, taking such an idea as I am doing, it doesn't seem to me that a SP system would have anything to do with whether it could work or not. The "PLEX" concept works with and without the skillpoint system.

As for "There's enough depth with the game to experience it before paying a bunch of money for something, without any clue if that's entertaining."
Yes? And? That's why this game and nearly every other provide free trials, right? Am I missing something? EVE's is actually a lot longer and less limited that some others that I am aware of.

You've really got to be more clear. You need to lay out exactly what you want and stop talking so much theory. This isn't your freshman art school game design class.



He can't be any more clear because then he'd have to state his true agenda: he doesn't like having to wait for stuff and thinks he'd do a lot better if he wasn't "behind" on skill points, it's the age old whine. If he'd say that then no one would take him serious so instead he uses a lot of :words: and :reasons: to try and convince us that it would just be better for the game if "some changes" were to happen.

He's not interested in it being better for the game, he's interested in not being behind.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2015-10-23 16:45:07 UTC
It'd odd how a clear vision of increasing sub retention through what even the devlopment company states is the problem (motivation and expectations), defined through science's take on those, can be met with such non-scientific, unbased responses.

Isn't that unnecessary bias? Here's a logical claim on:

  • increasing content
    • Each sub that could explore the game would undock more instead of being forced to set a queue and "just figure out something else" that they're not necessarily interested in. They could be industrious, so there are more options to make ISK, thus more opportunity to undock. Newbies engaging sov with decent fleet comps requires sovereignties to out-pay or out-strategize them. The trend is more accessibility = more play.

  • increasing interest through just getting out of the way of intrinsic motivation
    • That includes the drives to master the game; to experience relevance in a dynamic (and deeply economical) environment (including increased depth of social factors, plausibly increasing referrals); and to feel effective and free.

  • increased interest through meeting expectations
    • Subs come to the game to play it. From stories.. that's about capitals, the many ships and fleet comps, and industrialization.

    If you have literally any alternatives for these, this is a decent place to post 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.
    Odie McCracken
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #73 - 2015-10-23 16:51:11 UTC
    Alternatives? How about the game advancement structure as it is? Works for me.
    Cidanel Afuran
    Grant Village
    #74 - 2015-10-23 17:00:12 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    It'd odd how a clear vision of increasing sub retention through what even the devlopment company states is the problem (motivation and expectations), defined through science's take on those, can be met with such non-scientific, unbased responses.

    Isn't that unnecessary bias? Here's a logical claim on:

  • increasing content
    • Each sub that could explore the game would undock more instead of being forced to set a queue and "just figure out something else" that they're not necessarily interested in. They could be industrious, so there are more options to make ISK, thus more opportunity to undock. Newbies engaging sov with decent fleet comps requires sovereignties to out-pay or out-strategize them. The trend is more accessibility = more play.

  • increasing interest through just getting out of the way of intrinsic motivation
    • That includes the drives to master the game; to experience relevance in a dynamic (and deeply economical) environment (including increased depth of social factors, plausibly increasing referrals); and to feel effective and free.

  • increased interest through meeting expectations
    • Subs come to the game to play it. From stories.. that's about capitals, the many ships and fleet comps, and industrialization.

    If you have literally any alternatives for these, this is a decent place to post it.


    You keep assuming more subs purely for the sake of more subs is a good thing. Why is that?

    As I asked you before (which you refused to answer) in one of the numerous threads you've started on this topic, what are the characteristics of CCP's target demographic for EVE?
    Thierry Orlenard
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #75 - 2015-10-23 17:13:33 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    It'd odd how a clear vision of increasing sub retention through what even the devlopment company states is the problem (motivation and expectations), defined through science's take on those, can be met with such non-scientific, unbased responses.

    Isn't that unnecessary bias?



    So you've quoted a couple of studies; that's the "science" part you refer to -- right? So where is the "clear vision" part? Still waiting on that, I'm sorry to say.
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #76 - 2015-10-23 17:19:48 UTC
    Cidanel Afuran wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    It'd odd how a clear vision of increasing sub retention through what even the devlopment company states is the problem (motivation and expectations), defined through science's take on those, can be met with such non-scientific, unbased responses.

    Isn't that unnecessary bias? Here's a logical claim on:

  • increasing content
    • Each sub that could explore the game would undock more instead of being forced to set a queue and "just figure out something else" that they're not necessarily interested in. They could be industrious, so there are more options to make ISK, thus more opportunity to undock. Newbies engaging sov with decent fleet comps requires sovereignties to out-pay or out-strategize them. The trend is more accessibility = more play.

  • increasing interest through just getting out of the way of intrinsic motivation
    • That includes the drives to master the game; to experience relevance in a dynamic (and deeply economical) environment (including increased depth of social factors, plausibly increasing referrals); and to feel effective and free.

  • increased interest through meeting expectations
    • Subs come to the game to play it. From stories.. that's about capitals, the many ships and fleet comps, and industrialization.

    If you have literally any alternatives for these, this is a decent place to post it.


    You keep assuming more subs purely for the sake of more subs is a good thing. Why is that?

    As I asked you before (which you refused to answer) in one of the numerous threads you've started on this topic, what are the characteristics of CCP's target demographic for EVE?

    Demographics are unhelpful for game design. Notably, CCP states that the design philosophy for improvement is based on expectations and motivation (and mentions "the obvious research on the topic"). Demographic information can improve advertisement effectiveness, but it seems most of the game's advertisement comes from gameplay.

    Notable, as well, is that with JF and other implementations, the plausibility of these stories is reduced.. and could be designed to come through something else. *hint*

    --On more subs--

    Thierry Orlenard wrote:
    So you've quoted a couple of studies; that's the "science" part you refer to -- right? So where is the "clear vision" part? Still waiting on that, I'm sorry to say.

    It's removing SP. Please refer to the previous post with bullet points for why.

    "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.
    Cidanel Afuran
    Grant Village
    #77 - 2015-10-23 17:26:00 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    Demographics are unhelpful for game design. Notably, CCP states that the design philosophy for improvement is based on expectations and motivation (and mentions "the obvious research on the topic"). Demographic information can improve advertisement effectiveness, but it seems most of the game's advertisement comes from gameplay.


    "understanding your target audience when creating a product is unhelpful"

    What?
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #78 - 2015-10-23 17:33:07 UTC
    Cidanel Afuran wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    Demographics are unhelpful for game design. Notably, CCP states that the design philosophy for improvement is based on expectations and motivation (and mentions "the obvious research on the topic"). Demographic information can improve advertisement effectiveness, but it seems most of the game's advertisement comes from gameplay.


    "understanding your target audience when creating a product is unhelpful"

    What?

    We've already discussed what we understand about the target audience. We realize what they expect, and we realize what motivates them.

    If you have more information, it'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.
    Odie McCracken
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #79 - 2015-10-23 17:40:26 UTC
    What "more information" are you looking for? I think most of us like the skill system the way it is and think it's a major selling point of the game.

    Are you looking for ideas to get new people into Eve or a replacement for the skill point system?
    Cidanel Afuran
    Grant Village
    #80 - 2015-10-23 17:55:34 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    We've already discussed what we understand about the target audience. We realize what they expect, and we realize what motivates them.

    If you have more information, it's welcome.


    No you haven't. You copy/pasted something out of a freshmen level psychology textbook.

    One more time. What is CCP's target demographic for EVE?