EVE Information Portal

QFT

There was no need to claim SP provided equal chance for victory. There was no statement that there should be equal chance for victory between differing tenures of player. Only between classes, which a skill based system effectively eliminates as a concept at the character level. Hence the advocacy of a skill-point based system.

And we're not dealing with a black and white fallacy, but a black and white fact. They either did or didn't address and advocate for a progression-less system. They chose not to. Thus, whether they think it has merit or not is not something that can be specifically inferred. As such, it's NOT evidence of your point. Similarly they either did or didn't advocate a skill-point based system, the range of such systems aside, and concluded it superior. We can infer things from either omission or lack thereof, but either way the fact of NOT advocating a flat system is just that, fact.

It makes your claim of advocacy and evidence for such a system also false, as they literally linked one system to the idea of control and ownership over another.

You're interpretation doesn't match the statement at all. Equal incentive != equal capability. Incentive drives the desire to participate, but does not define the means of doing so and thus in no way mandates or even suggests equal access.

Nothing there says it should be "equally convenient." It's not science; it's again you providing selective interpretation.

If that's true , then it's going to be sad to see this game reduce to such a low level.

Why would they say it? Maybe because they are contrasting a class/level system to a skill-point system and how the former creates potential disadvantages in general balance intrinsic to the character where the latter tends to avoid the issue.

That's a concept of comparative balance which leads to being able to invest in single character development to work towards a variety of roles and avoid inherent and permanent poor match-ups with no outs at the whims of class limits and their balance.

Neither system creates a system of direct and consistent equality or lack of progression.

And still no, it does not imply every player is at equal odds of winning, merely that the class alone is not a strong determinant. That's all. That still doesn't exclude other factors of a character from making encounters uneven. The report doesn't even attempt to do that. Thus the players are at no obligation to be made totally equal by any reasoning presented. That argument simply isn't made.

And learning to control their character effectively mandates no access to any specific tool, but rather competence with the tools you have. Competitiveness comes from competence, not universal access. And control of the environment, so far as it actually exists and further with all other cooperative structures that may be working against you, extends from competence and cooperation, neither of which mandate specific tool sets for any specific player (but socially benefits from differing skill sets, something you would eliminate).

Everything lines up as is, you just keep erroneously conflating the idea of piloting cap ships day 1 with being the sole measure of character control.

I just related all the points for you in a coherent manner. All you gave was this.

You just did the very thing you accused me of doing when what I did was directly address the issues with concepts you presented and the problems with what you tried to use as evidence.

Tempted as I am to reciprocate such a lazy response, regarding comparing skill systems, you haven't defined how EvE's might differ in any meaningful way for the argument save suggesting one that there be no lockouts, only added efficiencies, which still falls against the concept of "equal opportunity for a win" between all players.

So lets say that we do go that route and a new player decides to just in a carrier with reduced cap, fitting, damage output, repair capacity, hit points, agility, jump capacity, module effectiveness and game knowledge to top it all off. This helps them how? Their ability to affect their environment from the frigate was better due to the lack of compounding differences between the tools in use over the multiple ship size increases alongside specialized functions.

So what form of an actual skill system maintains the advantages of skills while not compounding the differences between having them ant not having them when you get into deeper mechanics?

No, that wasn't the claim. The claim was "it does not imply every player is at equal odds of winning, merely that the class alone is not a strong determinant. That's all. That still doesn't exclude other factors of a character from making encounters uneven."

How you managed to turn "it does not imply every player is at equal odds of winning" into "It's trying to claim skill points as equal opportunity to win" is something I cannot explain.

You keep conflating the issue of avoiding class based dominance through imbalance with endorsement of a 0 advantage landscape and claiming a statement that said the former does the latter.

Where is character control set up as loss avoidance, also how does that not conflict with the definition of "secondary control" in the paper as effectively coping with loss and/or the environment and choosing goals according to ones capabilities (which is a form of control advocated by the report as well)?

Also you've turned Yee's words into a paradox. Somehow each player is supposed to be the determinant of an encounter? This includes the impossibility created when characters desire conflict? Everyone can't be a winner when players compete. Everyone can't have their influence on a limited environment.

Edit: And actually one of EvE's fundaments goes beyond simply saying it's ok to lose, it says you WILL sometimes lose and advises to be prepared for it (secondary control again).

That is the most blantent misrepresentation of a statement you've pulled yet:

Why would they say to give equal opportunity for any class to win!? What plays a character class? The player

Equal opportunity meaning that there is no game mechanic favouring one class specialization over another e.g. Warlock being overpowered by its current patch / expansion to any other class in game, Has no golden spell or golden ammo.

When individuals experience a reduction in primary control, they may either withdraw (abandon the MMORPG and identify alternative goals) or they may invest in secondary control. To ensure a fair gaming environment, MMORPGs run in real time with a low level of live control [79], and players may therefore seek greater interpretive (secondary) control. Because secondary control is characterized by persistent behavior [69], by definition MMORPG players display secondary control behavior

2. Secondary Control over the Character
Scon1: I have invested a great deal of time in managing my character.
Scon2: I spend a great deal of time as my character.
Scon3: I frequently visit the game to manage my character.

I'm so mad at you CCP! They just canceled out. All of you, are you happy&!

Yes my statement is, you put :


Thats not the place when the class is unbalanced, you'll always find in a class based games that one will be better than the rest between expansions and patches. When a game offers only one class you don't have that problem. Which leads to me your next proclamation you stated how are newbies to challenge sov ? Is this someone new to the game. ??