These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Skill Points remapping/buying™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#681 - 2015-10-26 10:06:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You fail to understand the importance of diminishing returns. Choose to master a frigate and a 12 year old character with all his millions of SP over you will be on the same footing, unless it's something truely new, in which case you are already equal. Until the change, then all that will matter is who has the most money.

Currently there is a progression based on time invensted via sp. That will go away, to be replaced with who has the most cash. Currently sp isn't a pay to win, instead it's time spent, priorities decided upon, decions made.

All of that is going to go away. It takes money to get time, but there is little you can do to maximise your time. Eve is about the long haul and choices having meaningful consequences. After this change it will be about spending money to perfect your build...Until ccp decides to change a module and thus get another injection of cash.

The reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons it's important to keep it this way.

The game scales beyond frigates, with requirements stacking per greater class. Limiting the conversation to frigates effects the conversation very little. Strategy is much more. Corps are (and can require) much more significance.

From a study:
Quote:
An MMO should provide an opportunity for any character engaged in combat to win.

Social identity [correlates with game loyalty (subs) and] is defined as the knowledge of belonging to a social group, as well as the emotional and value significance of his or her group membership.

Value is very correlative with SP, and lower value is lower social identity (game loyalty).

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#682 - 2015-10-26 10:13:20 UTC
Frigates were just one example. Other than timeframe the same is true of every ship in the game.

You want to shortcircut the progression rather than finding a niche with what you can do while building for what you want to do next. Basically you feel you are too good for the beginning stages of the game and feel entitled to instant gratification.

While strategy scales far beyond frigate, it also never escapes the need for them. In fact most larger ships are exceedingly vulnerable to them.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#683 - 2015-10-26 10:15:20 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Frigates were just one example. Other than timeframe the same is true of every ship in the game.

You want to shortcircut the progression rather than finding a niche with what you can do while building for what you want to do next. Basically you feel you are too good for the beginning stages of the game and feel entitled to instant gratification.

While strategy scales far beyond frigate, it also never escapes the need for them. In fact most larger ships are exceedingly vulnerable to them.

You're the one arguing for opportunity cost (to the detriment of a fair playing field). Prove it, then. Your anecdote is unconvincing, especially next to research.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#684 - 2015-10-26 10:16:04 UTC
Dror wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You fail to understand the importance of diminishing returns. Choose to master a frigate and a 12 year old character with all his millions of SP over you will be on the same footing, unless it's something truely new, in which case you are already equal. Until the change, then all that will matter is who has the most money.

Currently there is a progression based on time invensted via sp. That will go away, to be replaced with who has the most cash. Currently sp isn't a pay to win, instead it's time spent, priorities decided upon, decions made.

All of that is going to go away. It takes money to get time, but there is little you can do to maximise your time. Eve is about the long haul and choices having meaningful consequences. After this change it will be about spending money to perfect your build...Until ccp decides to change a module and thus get another injection of cash.

The reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons it's important to keep it this way.

The game scales beyond frigates, with requirements stacking per greater class. Limiting the conversation to frigates effects the conversation very little. Strategy is much more. Corps are (and can require) much more significance.

From a study:
Quote:
An MMO should provide an opportunity for any character engaged in combat to win.

Social identity [correlates with game loyalty (subs) and] is defined as the knowledge of belonging to a social group, as well as the emotional and value significance of his or her group membership.

Value is very correlative with SP, and lower value is lower social identity (game loyalty).


I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#685 - 2015-10-26 10:16:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
I have a couple of suggestions and criticisms regarding skill remapping and buying. I have put them down in the devblog thread for the skill trading proposal and so I won't repeat it here but instead link to my ideas on that thread.

Suggestions for Skill Remapping & Buying

I hope that it may be of some use to CCP as they look for suggestions on how to improve their current skill trading proposal.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#686 - 2015-10-26 10:18:33 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Dror wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You fail to understand the importance of diminishing returns. Choose to master a frigate and a 12 year old character with all his millions of SP over you will be on the same footing, unless it's something truely new, in which case you are already equal. Until the change, then all that will matter is who has the most money.

Currently there is a progression based on time invensted via sp. That will go away, to be replaced with who has the most cash. Currently sp isn't a pay to win, instead it's time spent, priorities decided upon, decions made.

All of that is going to go away. It takes money to get time, but there is little you can do to maximise your time. Eve is about the long haul and choices having meaningful consequences. After this change it will be about spending money to perfect your build...Until ccp decides to change a module and thus get another injection of cash.

The reasons you don't like it are exactly the reasons it's important to keep it this way.

The game scales beyond frigates, with requirements stacking per greater class. Limiting the conversation to frigates effects the conversation very little. Strategy is much more. Corps are (and can require) much more significance.

From a study:
Quote:
An MMO should provide an opportunity for any character engaged in combat to win.

Social identity [correlates with game loyalty (subs) and] is defined as the knowledge of belonging to a social group, as well as the emotional and value significance of his or her group membership.

Value is very correlative with SP, and lower value is lower social identity (game loyalty).


I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6125792#post6125792

"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.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#687 - 2015-10-26 10:45:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
...
Jesus ******* Christ on a Pogo stick...
... Roll

Now I *would* pay good ISK to see that...
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#688 - 2015-10-26 10:51:18 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.


The fact that the research he keeps quoting acknowledges at the end of the article that it has serious limitations and also only covers 173 players who self-reported the results (and are therefore doubtful in terms of usefulness) doesn't come into it either apparently...
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#689 - 2015-10-26 10:58:01 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.


The fact that the research he keeps quoting acknowledges at the end of the article that it has serious limitations and also only covers 173 players who self-reported the results (and are therefore doubtful in terms of usefulness) doesn't come into it either apparently...

"Guys, really, an unfair playing field is great!"

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#690 - 2015-10-26 11:49:48 UTC
You would have a point if all of EVE was a 1v1 pvp fight.

It's not. There are many roads, many choices. Currently all you buy is time in game. What you do with that time is based on your own desires.

Your instant gratification does not deserve to devalue my long term progress
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#691 - 2015-10-26 12:58:13 UTC
Dror wrote:
"Guys, really, an unfair playing field is great!"


LOL.

Please stop posting, you do not get to pay some 50 bucks you insta-train your titan of choice you feel entitled to have on day one.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#692 - 2015-10-26 13:05:57 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Dror wrote:
"Guys, really, an unfair playing field is great!"


LOL.

Please stop posting, you do not get to pay some 50 bucks you insta-train your titan of choice you feel entitled to have on day one.

You seem to imply that this discussion is about SP trading. It's actually about having a fair opportunity from removing SP.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
You would have a point if all of EVE was a 1v1 pvp fight.

It's not. There are many roads, many choices. Currently all you buy is time in game. What you do with that time is based on your own desires.

Your instant gratification does not deserve to devalue my long term progress


Dror wrote:
You're the one arguing for opportunity cost (to the detriment of a fair playing field). Prove it, then. Your anecdote is unconvincing, especially next to research.


A reduced toolset decreases engagement windows and thus content, yeah?

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#693 - 2015-10-26 14:43:10 UTC
If you really believe that reducing all complexity and depth in the game improves it, you should probably go find yourself an Atari 2600 and load up Pong.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#694 - 2015-10-26 15:04:37 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Dror wrote:
You're the one arguing for opportunity cost (to the detriment of a fair playing field). Prove it, then. Your anecdote is unconvincing, especially next to research.

A reduced toolset decreases engagement windows and thus content, yeah?

If you really believe that reducing all complexity and depth in the game improves it, you should probably go find yourself an Atari 2600 and load up Pong.

So, you have nothing to say. Sweet.

"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.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#695 - 2015-10-26 15:19:50 UTC
Nah, it's all been said.

You just have the wrong game. You are looking for something like battlefield where the games are short term intense skirmishes with no real depth or consequences other than stats on a killboard.

You don't want to have to deal with choices and consequences with meaning, you just want to load up instant action and go.

I don't know if there are any good space fighter Sims out there, but that's not what EVE is.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#696 - 2015-10-26 15:26:03 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Nah, it's all been said.

You just have the wrong game. You are looking for something like battlefield where the games are short term intense skirmishes with no real depth or consequences other than stats on a killboard.

You don't want to have to deal with choices and consequences with meaning, you just want to load up instant action and go.

I don't know if there are any good space fighter Sims out there, but that's not what EVE is.

It could be said the same about your very definition of depth and consequence. So, it's OK to reduce content, lower sub interest and referral potential, and set a poor esteem for the game.. just to get some stats in a little stream of basically a non-interactive mechanic (with apparently something about "character value".. which is a complete paradox if SP only provides what it removes)?

"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.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#697 - 2015-10-26 15:44:10 UTC
Cutting a section from the reply to Mike, the final thought it seems.

Dror wrote:
...

A reduced toolset decreases engagement windows and thus content, yeah?

Content, being defined as partly derived from a toolset.
The toolset being important enough to impact content, when reduced.

So, what impact does the actual character's toolset deliver?
That being, what the character is good at, or at least useful helping with?

If we focus our characters, in the manner supported by selling and buying SPs to meet demands and 'expected' forms of gameplay... we effectively cut out the unexpected.

Along with the unexpected, the unprepared for conditions, which can happen and expose the players using unprepared characters to loss and frustration.

We see the results of this on one side, from the complaints here, but another side simply has limited capacity for frustration.
It just moves on when it hits this limit, and many from this side never return.

A major subset of our population is probably going to make it their mission to prey on these cookie cutter players.
We have always had groups which deliberately target other groups, based on such simply defined details.
Imagine what would happen if the miner / orca smashing groups targeted these, the way they did high sec PvE groups in the past.

TL;DR: This will probably make one segment happy, by dumbing down the requirements to play in certain specific ways, but a sandbox game should be expected to seek weaknesses, and limited skill sets are highly exposed here.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#698 - 2015-10-26 15:57:42 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Cutting a section from the reply to Mike, the final thought it seems.

Dror wrote:
...

A reduced toolset decreases engagement windows and thus content, yeah?

Content, being defined as partly derived from a toolset.
The toolset being important enough to impact content, when reduced.

So, what impact does the actual character's toolset deliver?
That being, what the character is good at, or at least useful helping with?

If we focus our characters, in the manner supported by selling and buying SPs to meet demands and 'expected' forms of gameplay... we effectively cut out the unexpected.

Along with the unexpected, the unprepared for conditions, which can happen and expose the players using unprepared characters to loss and frustration.

We see the results of this on one side, from the complaints here, but another side simply has limited capacity for frustration.
It just moves on when it hits this limit, and many from this side never return.

A major subset of our population is probably going to make it their mission to prey on these cookie cutter players.
We have always had groups which deliberately target other groups, based on such simply defined details.
Imagine what would happen if the miner / orca smashing groups targeted these, the way they did high sec PvE groups in the past.

TL;DR: This will probably make one segment happy, by dumbing down the requirements to play in certain specific ways, but a sandbox game should be expected to seek weaknesses, and limited skill sets are highly exposed here.

The bar for what point a game can seem entertaining, through loss, greatly increases with multiple niches. That's because, with multiple playstyles comes more creative methods of making ISK for funding other styles of play. Increased combat effectiveness benefits PvE ISK-making, for example, but to imply that a single gameplay niche can entertain its demographic for their full experience with the game (which is advertised as a full sandbox, including marketing, industry, and other styles) is shallow at best. That's what SP does.

"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.
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#699 - 2015-10-26 17:36:38 UTC
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.


The fact that the research he keeps quoting acknowledges at the end of the article that it has serious limitations and also only covers 173 players who self-reported the results (and are therefore doubtful in terms of usefulness) doesn't come into it either apparently...

"Guys, really, an unfair playing field is great!"


I would stop posting... making a fool of yourself, you are!

Been around since the beginning.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#700 - 2015-10-26 17:47:01 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
...

I am not sure what the credentials of the authors of that study are, but your quoted section is either taken way out of context or they don't know anything about mmo's and are confusing them with regular multiplayer combat games like battlefield.


The fact that the research he keeps quoting acknowledges at the end of the article that it has serious limitations and also only covers 173 players who self-reported the results (and are therefore doubtful in terms of usefulness) doesn't come into it either apparently...

"Guys, really, an unfair playing field is great!"


I would stop posting... making a fool of yourself, you are!

Maybe you should start posting.. on-topic content.. maybe some that furthers the conversation.

It's a fair statement that a ludicrously gated sandbox deters play.

"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.