These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#161 - 2015-10-24 13:21:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Odie McCracken wrote:
Dror wrote:
Odie McCracken wrote:
Dror wrote:
Opinion


Right, we get what you think. You've stated this many times. This is not evidence, it doesn't matter what my bias is.

Then stop posting. There's plenty of room for discussion here. There are plenty of studies. If you'd like to refute the MMO trend for unsubs, please do so. If you'd like to show literally any clue about motivation, please, be the thread's guest.

Last warning to stay on topic.


I am on topic, I am asking you to prove your point. Take a point from a study you've linked and put your spin on it in the context of Eve.

Also, Warning? What are you going to do? Report me to CCP for not agreeing with what I think is a stupid opinion?

"Study reveals keys to gamer loyalty: One strategy found that giving players more control and ownership of their character increased loyalty. 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.'" (Report)
EVE obviously has a problem with reinforcing the value of a single character. The study lists a correlation that this also devalues game loyalty. Furthermore, the report directly states that to increase that investment (from both psychological ownership theory and social identity theory) comes from having an equal opportunity (e.g., capital v capital SP, equal marketing potential and industrialization). This plays well with the idea that effectiveness is motivating. Being limited to duct-tape frigates and low-SP cruiser fits (for an early sub experience) devalues the sandbox. The reason they had come, opportunity, becomes nothing in the face of a training queue, oddly enough.

Furthermore, limited effectiveness and social status in a corp reduces the quality of cooperation and other 'guild' values. There are even fewer roles being played per character, as most train just combat SP.. or maybe even mining (but have low reprocessing efficiency).

"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.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#162 - 2015-10-24 13:29:12 UTC
Dror wrote:
sniped for space



The problem with your theory is a couple of things.

First off if we remove SP or give players a large starting amount or the ability to buy SP they won't have a vested interest in achieving the level they wish to attain. I know when I started it was slightly different, but I was excited each time I unlocked a T2 ship or module.

So we have a catch 22/22... If you give people tons of SP they will be short term subscribers as they find out that Blob style combat is the only real combat unless you are extremely skilled or lucky.

If you don't give them SP they may be turned off from the start and discouraged, but those that stay it out will stay longer before finding out that Blob combat is the only combat available most of the time.

If you change the design of the game to eliminate Blob Combat you then get the old guard in a tizzy as they have power from the directing of "Their" blob armies against other blob armies.


So who do we discourage, who do we encourage and how does doing one thing prevent the decline of other groups?

I don't think actively trying to court to new players in a 13/14 year old MMO is a good idea. Unfortunately, without new players we are seeing the game bleed slowly to death... Catch 22 with another Catch 22 on top.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2015-10-24 13:29:58 UTC
I feel like that study reinforces why skillpoints are good. Everyone has an equal opportunity at the start to pick whatever skills they want. That gives us ownership of our characters. I also agree with social interaction in 'guilds' builds loyalty to the game. This Eve already has and really doesn't have anything to do with skillpoints.

"EVE obviously has a problem with reinforcing the value of a single character" I disagree with this, why is this obvious?

Why does a low skillpoint cruiser devalue the sandbox? That doesn't even make sense.

Frankly I think you just want instant gratification and having your precious feely feels coddled. Eve is not this game, never was.

If you can get one actual person to agree with you maybe your argument would hold more water? What's "obvious" is that you really don't get how the game works or what the effect of removing sp would be.

I like skillpoints for the same reasons many others have posted in this thread, perhaps you should at least acknowledge what others are saying.
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#164 - 2015-10-24 14:19:08 UTC
Dror wrote:

Excuse, what's the character bazaar? That's quite instant, proportionally.


That is no different in any meaningful way from grinding for a PLEX. You are trading currency (ISK) for somebody else's investment in time. Everybody ends up happy.

Nobody is making anyone buy a character. Buying a character can be a shortcut to access certain things. Still won't teach you how to actually use those things.

Dror wrote:

Now, where is it said that EVE should be made more like other games?


All the references to the design of other games being so great (SWG, WoW, etc.) starting with the original post and on from there.

Dror wrote:

That the experience doesn't "appeal to many gamers", as stated in this very thread, is a function of how it addresses providing content. If "lack of content" is truly the main reason for unsubs, as is evidenced in the OP, the problem is clearly SP. How can they decide if they like the game if they can't play it?

Enjoy.


What kind of babbling bull**** circular logic is this?

What doesn't appeal to many gamers is COMPLEXITY. That's the "vertical learning curve" in EVE and the sandbox makes that curve ruthless and unforgiving. That curve also means short-attention span, instant-gratification seeking players realizing they can't have access to the "top level content" on day one, that they have to work their way up to it. So they quit.

You should go design your own game instead of complaining about this one. But then you'd have to face the reality that one class does not make you an expert and that in fact you are almost half as clever as you think you are.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2015-10-24 14:29:20 UTC
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Dror wrote:
sniped for space



The problem with your theory is a couple of things.

First off if we remove SP or give players a large starting amount or the ability to buy SP they won't have a vested interest in achieving the level they wish to attain. I know when I started it was slightly different, but I was excited each time I unlocked a T2 ship or module.

So we have a catch 22/22... If you give people tons of SP they will be short term subscribers as they find out that Blob style combat is the only real combat unless you are extremely skilled or lucky.

If you don't give them SP they may be turned off from the start and discouraged, but those that stay it out will stay longer before finding out that Blob combat is the only combat available most of the time.

If you change the design of the game to eliminate Blob Combat you then get the old guard in a tizzy as they have power from the directing of "Their" blob armies against other blob armies.


So who do we discourage, who do we encourage and how does doing one thing prevent the decline of other groups?

I don't think actively trying to court to new players in a 13/14 year old MMO is a good idea. Unfortunately, without new players we are seeing the game bleed slowly to death... Catch 22 with another Catch 22 on top.

Everything about motivation lists freedom and effectiveness (autonomy) as a prime motivator, with extrinsic rewards like ships or SP, for example, as not only much less effective at motivating, but also (depending on the implementation) negative for creativity and overall interest. SP can provide a small sense of accomplishment, but how is that any better than what it already removes from the playing field, opportunity and fantasy?

From an article,
Quote:
Research from cognition offers several explanations that help to account for the advantages of self-directed learning. For example, self-directed learning helps us optimize our educational experience, allowing us to focus effort on useful information that we don’t already possess and exposing us to information that we don’t have access to through passive observation. The active nature of self-directed learning also helps us in encoding information and retaining it over time.

Frankly, how can a sub realize what he likes if he can't optimize his exploration? He can't commit to a goal if he can't experience at least a decent amount of the game.

From another, on what constraints are fine for creativity,
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.

This applies to the newbie corp being completely out-classed by veterans, or even the rookie FW character just trying to figure out if his stats are enough to be competitive. For the former, there's no real creative option out of just getting farmed; and for the latter, the very idea of being less effective because of a queue is daunting at best.

In other words, the suggestion that vested interest comes from SP instead of experiencing the game is quite absurd. It's as if the implication is that they can just go mine a round of minerals, produce a titan, and unsub with satisfaction. Furthermore, there's a lot designed for capital gameplay if the convention preview is any tell.

The game has a lot more than blobs for gameplay. Few MMOs promote discussion of actual piloting jargon. This type of playstyle is similar to a 3D ARPG and can be advertised as such. Furthermore, it's at least as deep as a MOBA, if not slightly less action-prevalent because of the free roam design -- yet, that very genre contrast shows the potential of the game to fulfill not only the hole that comes from such a shallow, repetitive experience, but also the the competitive niche.

"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
#166 - 2015-10-24 16:08:38 UTC
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2015-10-24 16:18:18 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.


How about explaining how they got evicted with minimal strategy?

They can't learn enough to outplay T3s in their T1s, and they can't outplay carriers or titans in their T3s.

"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
#168 - 2015-10-24 16:34:47 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.


How about explaining how they got evicted with minimal strategy?

They can't learn enough to outplay T3s in their T1s, and they can't outplay carriers or titans in their T3s.



Did you not understand the question? I will repeat it, rephrased slightly for clarity. If starter corps are non-competitive and sov is unchallenged as you state in your sig, explain how there are currently sov-holding corps (and alliances) that were renters just two years ago.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2015-10-24 16:38:05 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.


How about explaining how they got evicted with minimal strategy?

They can't learn enough to outplay T3s in their T1s, and they can't outplay carriers or titans in their T3s.



Did you not understand the question? I will repeat it, rephrased slightly for clarity. If starter corps are non-competitive and sov is unchallenged as you state in your sig, explain how there are currently sov-holding corps (and alliances) that were renters just two years ago.


It's a misrepresentation of what's being said.

Are Goons challenged? Point stands.

"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.
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#170 - 2015-10-24 16:44:50 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.


How about explaining how they got evicted with minimal strategy?

They can't learn enough to outplay T3s in their T1s, and they can't outplay carriers or titans in their T3s.



Did you not understand the question? I will repeat it, rephrased slightly for clarity. If starter corps are non-competitive and sov is unchallenged as you state in your sig, explain how there are currently sov-holding corps (and alliances) that were renters just two years ago.




Sov changes made it harder to rent to corps so they simply pay rent and receive the sov rights to the system. Read up on current PAP threads on Reddit and the more recent drama regarding accusations of leaders charging through a popular payment site for pals for renting systems.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Hugonaut Spvotz
Perkone
Caldari State
#171 - 2015-10-24 16:48:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Hugonaut Spvotz
Wrong topic durrr
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2015-10-24 16:48:46 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Quote:
Starter corps are non-competitive. Sov is unchallenged.


Explain, then, how there are corps that were renters just two years ago that are sov holders now.


How about explaining how they got evicted with minimal strategy?

They can't learn enough to outplay T3s in their T1s, and they can't outplay carriers or titans in their T3s.



Did you not understand the question? I will repeat it, rephrased slightly for clarity. If starter corps are non-competitive and sov is unchallenged as you state in your sig, explain how there are currently sov-holding corps (and alliances) that were renters just two years ago.


It's a misrepresentation of what's being said.

Are Goons challenged? Point stands.


So you're just going to ignore the question -- and the underlying fact, which is that this game's mechanics do, in fact, allow for starter corps to be competitive-- but again, as long as they work for it ( there's that word again).

As for your question, "Are Goons challenged?" I'll say this. Surely you have some clue of the effort it takes to maintain the empire they're built. The infrastructure, the diplomacy, the military training and man hours it takes those guys to keep what they have. Pretty sure they've got a few close friends keeping an eye on them at all times for any signs of weakness. No one has it easy here, bud.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2015-10-24 17:00:56 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:

It's a misrepresentation of what's being said.

Are Goons challenged? Point stands.


So you're just going to ignore the question -- and the underlying fact, which is that this game's mechanics do, in fact, allow for starter corps to be competitive-- but again, as long as they work for it ( there's that word again).

As for your question, "Are Goons challenged?" I'll say this. Surely you have some clue of the effort it takes to maintain the empire they're built. The infrastructure, the diplomacy, the military training and man hours it takes those guys to keep what they have. Pretty sure they've got a few close friends keeping an eye on them at all times for any signs of weakness. No one has it easy here, bud.

Can you please describe how the inaccessibility of equipment required to either support sov through challenges, or to challenge sovs that have more SP is "being competitive"? Can you define how a 30M SP character referring a fresh set of subs can form a fleet with them and have them in practical fittings for, say, thriving in the T3D meta?

"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.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#174 - 2015-10-24 17:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
For ***** and giggles, I went and found the full text of one of the studies this clown keeps citing and, as I'm sure many of you have guessed, this is a big game of Out Of Context Theater, starring Dror.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237151329_Player_Commitment_to_Massively_Multiplayer_Online_Role-Playing_Games_%28MMORPG%29_An_Integrated_Model

If you have the time, it's an amusing read, if only for illuminating the mental gymnastics Dror must be subjecting himself to in order to make it sound as if it says the things he wants it to say.

Quote:
...developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.



Note how very different this is from:

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


It also quite explicitly asserts the opposite of what Dror is saying: Character advancement is a necessary component of providing the player with a sense of ownership over the character.

So basically, he started with his conclusion, then cherry-picked/misquoted studies to make it sound as if they supported said position. Why, that's basically the definition of objective and unbiased. Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#175 - 2015-10-24 17:40:02 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
For ***** and giggles, I went and found the full text of one of the studies this clown keeps citing and, as I'm sure many of you have guessed, this is a big game of Out Of Context Theater, starring Dror.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237151329_Player_Commitment_to_Massively_Multiplayer_Online_Role-Playing_Games_%28MMORPG%29_An_Integrated_Model

If you have the time, it's an amusing read, if only for illuminating the mental gymnastics Dror must be subjecting himself to in order to make it sound as if it says the things he wants it to say.

Quote:
...developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.



Note how very different this is from:

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


It also quite explicitly asserts the opposite of what Dror is saying: Character advancement is a necessary component of providing the player with a sense of ownership over the character.

So basically, he started with his conclusion, then cherry-picked/misquoted studies to make it sound as if they supported said position. Why, that's basically the definition of objective and unbiased. Roll

Holy out of context, Batman.

Here's the full quote:

Quote:
A primary goal of most MMORPGs is to acquire objects to exert control over the character and the virtual world. However, because some character classes or skill sets can easily defeat characters of other classes or skills in many MMORPGs, developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.

"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.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#176 - 2015-10-24 17:44:00 UTC
Dror wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
For ***** and giggles, I went and found the full text of one of the studies this clown keeps citing and, as I'm sure many of you have guessed, this is a big game of Out Of Context Theater, starring Dror.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237151329_Player_Commitment_to_Massively_Multiplayer_Online_Role-Playing_Games_%28MMORPG%29_An_Integrated_Model

If you have the time, it's an amusing read, if only for illuminating the mental gymnastics Dror must be subjecting himself to in order to make it sound as if it says the things he wants it to say.

Quote:
...developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.



Note how very different this is from:

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


It also quite explicitly asserts the opposite of what Dror is saying: Character advancement is a necessary component of providing the player with a sense of ownership over the character.

So basically, he started with his conclusion, then cherry-picked/misquoted studies to make it sound as if they supported said position. Why, that's basically the definition of objective and unbiased. Roll

Holy out of context, Batman.

Here's the full quote:

Quote:
A primary goal of most MMORPGs is to acquire objects to exert control over the character and the virtual world. However, because some character classes or skill sets can easily defeat characters of other classes or skills in many MMORPGs, developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.



Here's the word you previously left out because you're a willfully dishonest scumbag: CLASS. It says any character CLASS. It is talking about the dissatisfaction a player feels when they are locked into a non-competitive class. It has absolutely ******* nothing to do with not being able to compete with a "higher level" character. In fact, nothing in the study does. You lied to make it sound as if it did.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#177 - 2015-10-24 17:44:01 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
For ***** and giggles, I went and found the full text of one of the studies this clown keeps citing and, as I'm sure many of you have guessed, this is a big game of Out Of Context Theater, starring Dror.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237151329_Player_Commitment_to_Massively_Multiplayer_Online_Role-Playing_Games_%28MMORPG%29_An_Integrated_Model

If you have the time, it's an amusing read, if only for illuminating the mental gymnastics Dror must be subjecting himself to in order to make it sound as if it says the things he wants it to say.

Quote:
...developers should consider a skill-point character development system over a class-based system to balance play and to provide an opportunity for any character class engaged in combat to win.



Note how very different this is from:

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


It also quite explicitly asserts the opposite of what Dror is saying: Character advancement is a necessary component of providing the player with a sense of ownership over the character.

So basically, he started with his conclusion, then cherry-picked/misquoted studies to make it sound as if they supported said position. Why, that's basically the definition of objective and unbiased. Roll
Thank you.

On the off chance that I can force myself to have any interest in this whatsoever, at least there is a link to the source document for a little less bias than we are ever likely to find in this thread.

Mr Epeen Cool
Deck Cadelanne
CAStabouts
#178 - 2015-10-24 17:47:53 UTC
Dror wrote:
more babbling


Your resistance to logic and reason is astonishing.

With every post, you dig your hole even deeper yet are clearly too egotistical to recognize what you are doing.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn professional."

- Hunter S. Thompson
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#179 - 2015-10-24 17:48:01 UTC
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2015-10-24 17:52:53 UTC
Odie McCracken wrote:
So you're saying a day one character should be able to win a 1v1 vs a 10 year vet?

Appeal to extremes. The fleet comment is about fitting viability, not just skillfulness.

SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Here's the word you previously left out because you're a willfully dishonest scumbag: CLASS. It says any character CLASS. It is talking about the dissatisfaction a player feels when they are locked into a non-competitive class. It has absolutely ******* nothing to do with not being able to compete with a "higher level" character. In fact, nothing in the study does. You lied to make it sound as if it did.

How is "class" more relevant than "equal opportunity to win"?

@ Mr. Epeen,
The study was already linked in the thread. Feel free to ask about anything, though, even sources.

"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.