Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This still wouldn't change. You'd still have to purchase a skillbook to apply the SP to that skill.

EDIT- changed my mind, I do not feel like feeding the trolls today.

To be linear... if we pay for 30 days of game time, we should have 30 days of skill time.

It doesn't matter if we log in once per day, or once per month. We pay for 30 days of access.

It's not a matter of entitlement (although it sort of is) since we are not asking for anything extra, or demanding special access.

Only that we get what we pay for.

If I have a pilot created specifically to fly a specific ship (say, titan) and I do not need to use that pilot but once a month... there's no reason why I should have to log in every 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 days just to reset a skill or add a skill.

No it isn't, it's quite literally the opposite.

I want my cake, I want to eat it too, and I want it served up on a platter when I'm too lazy to go and fetch it myself.

*insert sarcasm smiley for the slow-witted*

This point is usually made when discussing a longer skill queue, but it applies here and I'll reiterate the opinion I've expressed before: I agree it's "good design" to keep players engaged with the game, but (to borrow the carrot-and-stick analogy), the way the skill system is currently built feels far too much like the stick than the carrot.

You want players to say "I want to log in to EVE and do something." The player finds some genuinely entertaining, engaging activity in the game and logs in to do that; updating the skill queue is ancillary. This is the carrot.

The current design however has (some) players saying "I'd better log in to EVE, or I lose something." Of course the loss is the accrued SP. Updating the skill queue becomes the focus and is demanded of the player rather than simply being a means to an end. Log in or be punished; this is the stick.

Personally I feel that if someone has been reduced to logging in only to update their queue, then that action alone is not truly any form of "engagement," and realistically the chances of retaining that player aren't much higher than if they didn't have to log in at all.

I still champion the idea of long-term skill queues, and I think even this idea (accruing SP from your lowest attributes) has merit. Why penalize players for having other commitments?

After reading some meaningful cons i came to the conclusion that skilling purely skill points is not the way to go. The topic can be closesd by a move that was already proposed - let us change skills through eve gate.

No, it really is a decent idea, the forums are just full of trolls that damn near **** themselves when a "new" idea comes along. You can recognize them because they love saying "risk versus reward" and "EVE is harsh" and other such notable cliches for their favorite internet spaceship video game.

The skill queue, by and large, is a way to get players to truly "invest" in the game. Many MMO players will take periodic breaks from the game, letting their subscription lapse and then quickly grinding up what they missed when they return. In EVE, that doesn't work; if you're going to not play the game for a while, you have to decide if you want to 1) let your sub lapse and miss out on skill points, or 2) continue to to subscribe and force yourself to log in whenever necessary to update your skill queue, a process that can range from once a month to twice a week depending on the skills you are training.

CCP could give us the ability to update our queue from EVE Gate, but that cuts against the primary reason they chose the "skill queue" method of character advancement in the first place. Your idea does the same thing (eliminates the need to log in periodically and always be "thinking" about EVE to some degree) but has the plus side of encouraging players to keep their sub active, even if they don't/can't update the skill queue.

Repeating what was said half a dozen times (and ignored by half a dozen trolls) you could set a cap on the unallocated skills that you accrue; best way would be to train at a rate that treats you as having no allocated attributes or attributes at all, and then tack on an additional -3 to each of your already-zeroed attributes. There is no way to "game" this system; you're being penalized for not picking a skill, anyway you look at it . . . but, your character is still "progressing" to a non-trivial degree.

Is it worth developer time and resources? Probably not. But it's not a bad idea, and would certainly be a decent feature to add to the game (might also give CCP a nice fall back to rely on during unexpected downtimes. Rather than go about reimbursing everyone because a small fraction of players had their skill queue expire, CCP could just say, "yeah, we're sorry, but at least you got some skill points!)

Why would you even begin to suggest how I should play the game or do with my accounts as I see fit?

Why do I NEED to have skills that need to be updated so frequently?

Why if I am stacking skills and am finishing a L3 do I need to stack L4 and then wait 9 days so I can stack L5?

Why make L5 take 23 days to train where as if I am not using that pilot until it's a matter of optimization (such as titans or caps and bridging etc) if based on your suggestion I unsub that account?

If I'm locked into a ship or if that pilot is based on very specific uses, my usage of that pilot should have 0 bearing on my access or login count. Especially when it is an active account.

Why not start charging people by the week since you seem to advocate such a short term investment.


And also there's the meta and business of creating and selling alts that do not require you to actually do anything but study those books you bought and do not require interaction with the game.

This isn't a game where you need to apply the skill to get further ranks. You do that through time and sp. So why the bottleneck?

I'm not. I'm suggesting that if you're not playing the game, maybe you should stop paying for it because it rather seems like a waste of money to do otherwise.

I'm not.

Don't trust appearances — especially not ones you've made up yourself.

No. Why should I? Especially since what I'm talking about is how they spend their money, not their time.

Uh, not trusting "appearances" - your posting history is right over there. I swear I didn't make up the fact that you spend more time posting about EVE than most hard working people spend at their jobs . . .



Of course I should have known better, sorry for putting you on the spot. Seriously though, you were flat out addressing the other poster's "time spent" on this game, and because you seem to have lost all perspective on what qualifies as an average amount of time to spend on a video game (almost said "healthy amount of time" but didn't want to insult you), you're honestly not in a good position to offer any opinions.

To make it crystal clear: many of us go weeks without even thinking about EVE. Sometimes we're too busy; other times we just have a million other little things pulling at our time/attention. It would be nice for us average folk to have a fall back to rely on in case we spend "too much time AFE" (Away From Eve) while still subscribed. To you, that's maybe "entitled" but to those of us with a smidge of perspective, it actually makes a fair amount of sense.