Assembly Hall

I see no reason to change the current skilling system especially to a system as potentially open to abuse as the one you are proposing.

I read valid assertions, but what I mostly see behind it is fear of "no-lifers" that will abuse the system.
However, nobody replied to my quoting DUST. I am aware that both games are different, however DUST combines EVE's skill system with "action reward", it's even a general reward (not skill-specific)!

It means that DUST diplomats will never get any skill points for doing what they do. Nor won't the CEO. Is that unfair? No, it's simply that what they do doesn't have a direct influence in their character's lifes as a fighter. I think here, many people confuse players and their characters.

But then again, in EVE, as you said, it doesn't require any in-game skills to be a diplomat or a scout... so to what would you give out skill points anyway, as there are no in-game skills for that?
You can scout and be a diplomat without any in-game skills, which means you don't need a skill-point bonus in that area anyway, because there are no skills that make you less efficient at it than any other person.

Perhaps I should formulate the first idea again. In my thought, bonus skillpoints are only awarded to skills that fall under the action's category.
For instance, I shoot lasers, my character gets better at shooting lasers. That's how it goes.
So a diplomat would get bonus skillpoints for shooting lasers, because that's what he'd be doing at that moment. His role is in meta gaming? Then he isn't limited by in-game skills as the grunts are. In the end, if there was to be an "injustice", it'd be the other way around: grunts do their role and are limited by their potential lack of skills, diplos or scouts are not.

And as for EVE's unique perspective, well, this system doesn't remove anything from anyone, you'd learn skills as fast as now (which according to your own words, is nothing to complain about).


At a time when CCP wants to attract (and supposedly, keep) new people into EVE, it seems to me that giving a new incentive to various activities (I'm sorry but as I don't have 20 accounts, nor any valuable asset to play marketeer, I actually have to grind to get any sort of isk, be it hisec missions, null-sec sites, mining, what have you) might actually get people into staying, and not just get into the game, get told "Well, you need at least 3 months before you can actually do cool stuff" and **** off as many do today.

Because it's easy to say that rewarding action is unnecessary, or even dangerous, when you have several 3-4 years old characters that allow you to do whatever you want to do. Just as easy that it is for some politicians to say general health-care is useless: well it is not for them, they got the money for it. And those who don't? Well they can **** off, take it or leave it, right? (btw I'm not american, and don't give a damn about american healthcare, I'm just making an analogy as many people as possible can relate to)
Well that's exactly how many newbies see. Leave it.


And I know this feels like butthurt, but it's not really for me that I want action rewards (it wouldn't change much to what I'm learning anyway now), but I know it'd encourage some newbies to stay long enough to get to see the whole game, and not just lvl 2 missions.
I have friends I want to play that game with me, but none of them wants to spend 3 months to start playing, and I understand them. (I know, they can specialise in t2 frigates and get in interceptors... really useful when you can't even do lvl2 missions)
And a minor bonus for being active, this skill being learned slightly faster because they did good, it might just be the little push they need to click that "subscribe" button.

What would it change for newbies? It'd give them one more chance to stay in the game.
What would it change for the vets? Nothing. Well yeah, it'd give the active newbies a chance to catch up with the lower skill inactive vets.

But you don't really care, do you, as long as you get to keep playing the game you own way :)

---

Anyway, if you'd be so kind, for this conversation to keep living on in an interesting way, to mark objections as under either the "principle" or "technical" level, that be nice (and it'd clarify the reading :) ).

For instance, saying that this proposition should not be adopted because it changes EVE's indentity is an objection on principle.
Saying that people will abuse the system by AFK repetitive actions is a technical objection.

Thank you in advance.

Care to explain why?

As I said previously, this specific type of gameplay (that comes close to meta-gameplay) does not require any in-game skills other than cloaking. Therefore, having low-skills somewhere does not hamper your capability to practice this activity, it is out of game skills that count.
In that instance, just as for diplomacy for example, there can be no in-game sp reward, as there is no in-game skill that limitates your actions in that field.

If you wanna be a good scout, train and practice scouting (and learn cloaking, yes, but it's not exactly the longest skill in the game).
If you wanna be a good battleship pilot, spend 6+ months learning skills, and also train and practice to be on equal grounds with someone that has already trained that up.

I'm of course not saying that the system should turn to those classic mmorpg xp grinder style, upping people to lvl 80, "yay imma elite pvper in 3 days now". I'm simply wondering if there could be a way that action is encouraged in another form than just ISK.


So TL;DR, to answer your question:
Activity based on in-game skill = bonus
Activity based on out of game skill = no bonus

And before you say "But it's unfair!" : well no, it's not, as you (almost) are not limited by in-game skills to do that job!

Hahaha I was expecting a vet's condescending response, and I'm not disappointed.

As I've said previously, it is very easy to say that "Eve is not about jumping into a uberbattleship" when YOU can actually do it!
It is somewhat less easy to actually discover the game and persist playing it, when so many players are old and have several accounts. And if you can't do **** for three months (come on, don't serve me the "be a rifter hero" bull ****, you know you actually need at least two months to understand enough of the game to do that, and one more month to have sufficient assets that you don't care about losing ships) it's frustrating.

Contrarily to what you seem to think, I do not want to turn EVE into an XP grinder. I appreciate the fact that I don't have to be logged and grind every single free hour of every single day to have a chance to get to an equal ground with older characters: I'll never be!
But I'll still log in and do stuff, so why not give active people a boost? What, you're afraid that some newbie will catch up with you through those bonuses? Lol.

Anyway, it clearly shows me that nothing's wrong with this idea on principle, but human uncontrollable fever for xp grind would actually harm EVE and I, as much as you guys, certainly don't want that.


Is it not possible to consider having this sp bonus for basic (newbie skills) only? That way vets don't have anything to ***** about, the grind remains about isk for the immense majority of the players, and it simply gives a boost to active new players without taking anything away from inactive players in the end (they still learn the skills as they would today).


As for EVE not rewarding grinding..... really? That's your argument? With tons of afk miners in the belt, mission and site runners in every corner of EVE, do you really think EVE is grinding free? As the meme goes, b*tch please.

Are you kidding? Rat's could give sp when shot, and completed plexes could also. I have no sympathy anyway since you live in an area that supposedly pays you isk wise for the risk you are taking, right? To expand the idea further, for killed rats and such, the combat sp's could be rewarded when your wallet updates every 15mins. I think it's totally fair.

Since when is meta game a valid form of gameplay? If you ask me it's just a part of EvE that will be abused far more often than the posters idea, which isn't completely bad. It's just half bad.

Here we go. Let's insult the intelligence of prospective players. As if you never dreamed of flying in a Titan when you first heard of it. How is that plan panning out? Yeah, didn't think so.

I like the general idea of this proposal, but the idea needs to be refined and remodeled.

I've been playing this game for over four years now so in my opinion players like me don't need the boost, but giving new players a small boost to their skills with hard limits is actually a good idea. And here's how it should be accomplished:

1) Limit the skills that can be boosted to the essential core skills (these "core" skills are debatable)
-Spaceship command
-Engineering
-Gunnery
-Energy management
-etc

2) Limit the total value of skill points added (again debatable on the exact number)
-For example, if the total training time (assuming no implants and no remaps) takes 1 month to train up all the "core" skills to lvl 5, then these boost would take off a week training time

3) Limit the way these skill points can be awarded or earned
-Tie these bonus skill points to be only rewarded after completing portions of the tutorial missions.

4) Establish a "use it or lose it" system
-Once a player reaches all lvl 5's in the "core" skills, any remaining bonus skill points are deleted


This system would encourage new players to run the tutorial missions, it allows new players to finish the essential skills quicker which allows them to start training the skills that will put them closer to a veterans level. It's not game breaking in the overall process of playing because the bonus is small, but tangible and rewarding for new players. No veteran should cry about a new player being skilled a week earlier because we all know player skill and skill points are two very different things.

What about corp diplomats? Not a valid form of gameplay?
Creating video and picture advertisements to promote ones corp not a valid form of gameplay either?
What about corp meetings and strategies that take place in 3rd party forums and comms? Also not a valid form of gameplay?
Spying isn't valid either?
Out of game negotiations aren't valid either?
Neither is AWOX'ing?


Your very narrow definition of "valid" gameplay excludes some of the most vital functions of the game. Most of the biggest game breaking/making events in EvE happened in the meta.