These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

How would EVE break if we removed skills altogether?

First post
Author
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2015-10-04 06:16:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
Rivr Luzade wrote:

You are comparing apples and oranges. What Rise is talking about is about total loss when you die. You want to keep clones and remove skilling.

"A strawman replaces or represents whatever actual argument is being made.. including if to intentionally misread or misrepresent an argument to simplify the process of discrediting it."

You're not even trying to discuss the idea anymore.. and it would be best staying on topic.

"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.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#222 - 2015-10-04 07:25:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
I do not see a strawman:
You talk about removing skills from EVE while retaining skill-replacements upon death, in order to make "skilling" faster or remove gating or what you like to call it and with the total freedom we enjoy right now with skilling.
Rise talks about removing "skill training" from this particular kind of character by handing out SP in form of implants, and you lose everything should you ever get podded and the amount of SP and limits to what can be skilled.

These are not the same things, but both are about removal of skills and training. Stop trying to discredit people who disagree with you and stay on topic instead. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Mag's
Azn Empire
#223 - 2015-10-04 08:50:48 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I do not see a strawman.
That's because there wasn't one. Welcome to a discussion with Dror.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2015-10-04 13:29:00 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I do not see a strawman:
You talk about removing skills from EVE while retaining skill-replacements upon death, in order to make "skilling" faster or remove gating or what you like to call it and with the total freedom we enjoy right now with skilling.
Rise talks about removing "skill training" from this particular kind of character by handing out SP in form of implants, and you lose everything should you ever get podded and the amount of SP and limits to what can be skilled.

These are not the same things, but both are about removal of skills and training. Stop trying to discredit people who disagree with you and stay on topic instead. Roll

How can what I'm saying be discrediting your argument if you're not supplying one?

I say that sub retention is a problem because of expectations with how the game is. I say that SP limits motivation and the intrinsic values of experiencing the game, ruining initiative and exploration. How can I (where have I) stated that removing training queues, in any manner, wouldn't benefit any of this? It's a black and white fallacy: either being for SP "in the game" or against it. There are obviously alternatives. If a character doesn't have skill training for what he finds interesting, for him it doesn't exist.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. It's a strawman because we're not arguing about the same thing anymore. I'm still talking about SP's effect on the game, especially the NPE. What's your stance?

"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.

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#225 - 2015-10-04 14:11:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Lu Ziffer wrote:
Implants never stoped people from PVP cloneprices did and since they are removed nothing stops anyone from PVPing.
You can setup a +5 clone to skill fast and a +2 or +3 for PVP and a lot of people do not even use them in their PVP clones.


Actually, implants have stopped a lot of people from pvp.
See, clone prices really only effected those players with a high amount of SP, while implant costs stopped those with a low amount of SP.


SP has been deemed by the new player and the old player as one of the most, if not the most, important thing in Eve.
Many large and/or intriguing entities in Eve has a SP requirement in order to join.
There's also the fleet doctrines that require set skills at set numbers.

Then there's just the general isk making of Eve.

In basically everything you do in Eve, more SP is always better, even if that SP is not directed at a specific task, as versatility is always better.


The removal of attribute implants would GREATLY increase pvp activity.

Yes, there are those players that are risk averse, but at a certain point, no one cares about losing a frig with a empty clone.
If you remove att implants, that point will basically be from day one.


I will say, one of the first things I learned in Eve (apart from not solo can mining, and not shooting at the guy taking your can, and/or trying to take your stuff back after he flips is) is to get +3 implants pronto.
Get rid of them..


Edit...

I probably should have also spoken my opinion on the topic of this thread.
Personally, I'm against the idea. It would be awesome, but I probably would have a reason to keep my subscription.
When I was a newbro, I scanned down a Golem and it determined my path for the first 2 years or so.
If I didn't have that, it would have been maybe 6 months to earn the isk, and I then would have had no reason to continue playing.

Now, one thing I do agree on is that the soft wall skills, such as engineering, gunnery, etc. etc. etc., are pointless.
I feel they should just be removed, as they only hinder a newbro from getting into the game sooner, while having no effect on vets, as they trained them when they were new, and they provide no general merit that couldn't have been placed elsewhere.
All they did was force you to train a skill in order to be able to train a skill to fit a module.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#226 - 2015-10-04 14:45:32 UTC
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I do not see a strawman:
You talk about removing skills from EVE while retaining skill-replacements upon death, in order to make "skilling" faster or remove gating or what you like to call it and with the total freedom we enjoy right now with skilling.
Rise talks about removing "skill training" from this particular kind of character by handing out SP in form of implants, and you lose everything should you ever get podded and the amount of SP and limits to what can be skilled.

These are not the same things, but both are about removal of skills and training. Stop trying to discredit people who disagree with you and stay on topic instead. Roll

How can what I'm saying be discrediting your argument if you're not supplying one?

I say that sub retention is a problem because of expectations with how the game is. I say that SP limits motivation and the intrinsic values of experiencing the game, ruining initiative and exploration. How can I (where have I) stated that removing training queues, in any manner, wouldn't benefit any of this? It's a black and white fallacy: either being for SP "in the game" or against it. There are obviously alternatives. If a character doesn't have skill training for what he finds interesting, for him it doesn't exist.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. It's a strawman because we're not arguing about the same thing anymore. I'm still talking about SP's effect on the game, especially the NPE. What's your stance?

You accused me of grabbing straws with my critics on your linked presentation by CCP Rise while you try to use unsuitable CCP material to support your argument. The idea of the OP of this thread is to remove SP, skills and skill training from the game, you supply to that how "awesome" things would be for players without skills. Then you supply a presentation by CCP Rise (which has nothing to do with NPE, by the way, as he ends the NPE part of the presentation before starting this particular topic), trying to support your argument about removal of skills and how CCP is "in favor" of this. As I have described above, your and the OP's idea and Rise's idea have nothing in common beyond removal of skills, as both of your ideas keeps the long-term use, variety and freedom of skilling in the game whereas Rise's mind game kills your entire character for good and limits you in terms of what you can skill if you opt for no skills and implant learning. In this particular instance, the benefits of no skills where never part of the discussion with me and I have no interest in discussing them in this particular instance. My only drive was to show you that your linked presentation is in no way supporting your argument. That you introduce benefits for players into the argument with me, is of no concern to me.
My particular stance is described above in the 1st layer of the quote. More than that I do not need to comment on as it has nothing to do with this particular instance as I deliberately only quoted the part of your message that I wanted to see rectified.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2015-10-04 15:29:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
You accused me of grabbing straws with my critics on your linked presentation by CCP Rise while you try to use unsuitable CCP material to support your argument.

How is it unsuitable? We're talking about why SP would be redesigned. Ah, but the answer follows:

The idea of the OP of this thread is to remove SP, skills and skill training from the game, you supply to that how "awesome" things would be for players without skills. Then you supply a presentation by CCP Rise (which has nothing to do with NPE, by the way, as he ends the NPE part of the presentation before starting this particular topic), trying to support your argument about removal of skills and how CCP is "in favor" of this.

If the point is how awesome things would be for players without skills, and a CCP video shows that the idea can be awesome for both the players with skills and without skills, that does support the idea.

As I have described above, your and the OP's idea and Rise's idea have nothing in common beyond removal of skills, as both of your ideas keeps the long-term use, variety and freedom of skilling in the game whereas Rise's mind game kills your entire character for good and limits you in terms of what you can skill if you opt for no skills and implant learning. In this particular instance, the benefits of no skills where never part of the discussion with me and I have no interest in discussing them in this particular instance. My only drive was to show you that your linked presentation is in no way supporting your argument. That you introduce benefits for players into the argument with me, is of no concern to me.

Then what say do you have in the discussion? Criticizing an idea with no interest or check for its benefits is just bias. There's no room in a discussion about science and objectivity -- nor room in designing a game -- for that. The whole of a topic about redesigning SP is on benefits.

"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.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#228 - 2015-10-04 15:50:33 UTC
Dror wrote:
If the point is how awesome things would be for players without skills, and a CCP video shows that the idea can be awesome for both the players with skills and without skills, that does support the idea.

Then what say do you have in the discussion? Criticizing an idea with no interest or check for its benefits is just bias. There's no room in a discussion about science and objectivity -- nor room in designing a game -- for that. The whole of a topic about redesigning SP is on benefits.

There is no "players with skills" and "players without skills". Under both your and the OP's suggestion, there is no normally skilling people who keep their SP and people getting their skills with implants and lose them. You want people get their skills with implants (or whatever other way, just not the current skilling) and keep them upon death. Rise's presentation does not support anything you want.

I do not criticize the idea right now, I do not even criticize your use of the presentation in an attempt to support your argument. I just point out that Rise's presentation does not support anything you want. I do not see why I should not have a say in this particular instance which is not about the awesomeness of no SP, but you trying to use material that does not support your argument. However, our points of view have been mutually exclusive since page one so I am not particularly worried about yours. Big smile

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2015-10-04 16:04:46 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dror wrote:
If the point is how awesome things would be for players without skills, and a CCP video shows that the idea can be awesome for both the players with skills and without skills, that does support the idea.

Then what say do you have in the discussion? Criticizing an idea with no interest or check for its benefits is just bias. There's no room in a discussion about science and objectivity -- nor room in designing a game -- for that. The whole of a topic about redesigning SP is on benefits.

There is no "players with skills" and "players without skills". Under both your and the OP's suggestion, there is no normally skilling people who keep their SP and people getting their skills with implants and lose them. You want people get their skills with implants (or whatever other way, just not the current skilling) and keep them upon death. Rise's presentation does not support anything you want.

I do not criticize the idea right now, I do not even criticize your use of the presentation in an attempt to support your argument. I just point out that Rise's presentation does not support anything you want. I do not see why I should not have a say in this particular instance which is not about the awesomeness of no SP, but you trying to use material that does not support your argument. However, our points of view have been mutually exclusive since page one so I am not particularly worried about yours. Big smile

It seems like a bunch of gibberish.

Yet, what I've stated is clear. There's a helpfulness about the ability to play the game with how expectations come -- that it's a sandbox (on the level of B-R) which is non-linear.

"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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2015-10-04 18:55:32 UTC
Dror wrote:


No. C'mon what item in game has pretty much a fixed supply.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#231 - 2015-10-04 19:08:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dror wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dror wrote:
If the point is how awesome things would be for players without skills, and a CCP video shows that the idea can be awesome for both the players with skills and without skills, that does support the idea.

Then what say do you have in the discussion? Criticizing an idea with no interest or check for its benefits is just bias. There's no room in a discussion about science and objectivity -- nor room in designing a game -- for that. The whole of a topic about redesigning SP is on benefits.

There is no "players with skills" and "players without skills". Under both your and the OP's suggestion, there is no normally skilling people who keep their SP and people getting their skills with implants and lose them. You want people get their skills with implants (or whatever other way, just not the current skilling) and keep them upon death. Rise's presentation does not support anything you want.

I do not criticize the idea right now, I do not even criticize your use of the presentation in an attempt to support your argument. I just point out that Rise's presentation does not support anything you want. I do not see why I should not have a say in this particular instance which is not about the awesomeness of no SP, but you trying to use material that does not support your argument. However, our points of view have been mutually exclusive since page one so I am not particularly worried about yours. Big smile

It seems like a bunch of gibberish.

Yet, what I've stated is clear. There's a helpfulness about the ability to play the game with how expectations come -- that it's a sandbox (on the level of B-R) which is non-linear.


No it is really simple:

CCP Rise: You create a character that in effect has a fixed amount of SP that can be injected and allocated, the amount of SP is large (e.g. up to 20 million SP). Skills these SP could be applied to would be limited (i.e. you couldn't use it to create an industry alt that will never leave station). When you die, it is all gone, for good. Along with this you'd have a suspect timer all the time, and podding mechanics would change so these guys could be podded in HS. No additional training.

Dror: Simply remove all SP for everything, for everybody, everywhere. If you get podded you come back to the same thing.

They are very different proposals, to pretend they are the same is silly.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2015-10-04 19:16:54 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:


No. C'mon what item in game has pretty much a fixed supply.

What?

"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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#233 - 2015-10-04 19:20:42 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:


No. C'mon what item in game has pretty much a fixed supply.

What?



Moon goo. Standard production of moon goo has damn little to do with SP. Once you have the SP to set up a POS, that's it. Production of moon goo does not go up as any skills go up.

The only release valve would be alchemy. And the only time I used alchemy was when technetium prices were horribly out of whack.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2015-10-04 19:30:02 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
No it is really simple:

CCP Rise: You create a character that in effect has a fixed amount of SP that can be injected and allocated, the amount of SP is large (e.g. up to 20 million SP). Skills these SP could be applied to would be limited (i.e. you couldn't use it to create an industry alt that will never leave station). When you die, it is all gone, for good. Along with this you'd have a suspect timer all the time, and podding mechanics would change so these guys could be podded in HS. No additional training.

Dror: Simply remove all SP for everything, for everybody, everywhere. If you get podded you come back to the same thing.

They are very different proposals, to pretend they are the same is silly.

Why redesign SP if it's not a problem?

Where there is no comparison, there is respect. Saying that it's just one design or another is a false dilemma. Saying it's just one or the other is a result of this whole thread saying that SP should stay exactly the same. Now, all of a sudden, because there's CCP input, it's OK to discuss a redesign? What else is this whole thread about?

Again, implying you realize what I'm suggesting more than I do isn't about SP at all, anymore. Implying that removing SP for the playstyle that enjoys that.. but also keeping SP for the progression niche that enjoys it isn't somehow less relevant to a "remove SP" topic. I can't make another topic under a similar idea. Literally -- there's a locked thread showing this.

Is an SP redesign relevant only because it could improve the game? Yes. Is that all I've ever said? Yes.

Teckos Pech wrote:
What we'd have is a sudden and rapid increase in productivity, sounds great, but I urge caution. For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game. Moon goo.

Isn't that great? Doesn't that promote contest and strategy?

"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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#235 - 2015-10-04 19:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
No it is really simple:

CCP Rise: You create a character that in effect has a fixed amount of SP that can be injected and allocated, the amount of SP is large (e.g. up to 20 million SP). Skills these SP could be applied to would be limited (i.e. you couldn't use it to create an industry alt that will never leave station). When you die, it is all gone, for good. Along with this you'd have a suspect timer all the time, and podding mechanics would change so these guys could be podded in HS. No additional training.

Dror: Simply remove all SP for everything, for everybody, everywhere. If you get podded you come back to the same thing.

They are very different proposals, to pretend they are the same is silly.

Why redesign SP if it's not a problem?

Where there is no comparison, there is respect. Saying that it's just one design or another is a false dilemma. Saying it's just one or the other is a result of this whole thread saying that SP should stay exactly the same. Now, all of a sudden, because there's CCP input, it's OK to discuss a redesign? What else is this whole thread about?

Again, implying you realize what I'm suggesting more than I do isn't about SP at all, anymore. Implying that removing SP for the playstyle that enjoys that.. but also keeping SP for the progression niche that enjoys it isn't somehow less relevant to a "remove SP" topic. I can't make another topic under a similar idea. Literally -- there's a locked thread showing this.

Is an SP redesign relevant only because it could improve the game? Yes. Is that all I've ever said? Yes.

Teckos Pech wrote:
What we'd have is a sudden and rapid increase in productivity, sounds great, but I urge caution. For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game. Moon goo.

Isn't that great? Doesn't that promote contest and strategy?


CCP Rise's suggestion would be an option for players who are more casual in terms of play. They have a rather specific thing in mind they want to do...so here is a new option.

Note, it will almost surely be used by long term players who will know about various niche forms of play and have a free slot on an existing account to use this option.

A brand new player will not know that stuff. At all.

So I see CCP Rises idea as more of a way to improve existing player retention. It will likely have very little impact on new players.

As for moon goo prices possibly rising alot driving content/conflict. No. Back when technetium was sky high it resulted in a cartel and OTEC an agreement between the holders of tech moons not to go after each other's tech moons and even for mutual defense. So we have at least one historical example that says, "No!" Unless you consider an in game cartel and the negotiations for such to be good game play. I don't as I was not involved in said negotiations and only a handful of players were.

Seriously, I suspect Dror is your alt....how long have you, the player, been in game? Don't care who your main is....just curious how far back your information goes.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2015-10-04 20:48:13 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
What we'd have is a sudden and rapid increase in productivity, sounds great, but I urge caution. For example, some things just aren't going to go up in terms of their quantity in the game. Moon goo.

Isn't that great? Doesn't that promote contest and strategy?
Realistically, no, probably not. We have enough veteran players to reasonably simulate what a full set of options looks like at this point I'd imagine. With a large group of players already acting with a close approximation of having no SP restrictions and the only actually greatly affected players lacking the knowledge to effectively identify, procure and use advanced tools efficiently for any particular purpose, not to mention the fact that the tools themselves would be unchanged, we can see that the strategic landscape is already set in that regard.

If anything that landscape becomes more boring because variables have been removed and can no longer be manipulated by players in the case of a skill-less system.
WhyTry1
Hitmen.
Cartel.
#237 - 2015-10-04 21:15:16 UTC
the whole skilling aspect to me is rubbish. Its just a way to keep you playing and ties you in more. I would like the skills to go up based on how much you actually use something, mods, ships etc. The more you use it the higher your skill levels.

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2015-10-04 21:19:51 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
the whole skilling aspect to me is rubbish. Its just a way to keep you playing and ties you in more. I would like the skills to go up based on how much you actually use something, mods, ships etc. The more you use it the higher your skill levels.

So rather than just tie you in it should actively demand more of your time through a variety of busy work in addition?
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#239 - 2015-10-04 21:35:53 UTC
Instead of removing skills, remove tresholds for T2 modules and ships? Newbro will fly golem, but will he fly it effectively?

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#240 - 2015-10-04 21:56:45 UTC
WhyTry1 wrote:
the whole skilling aspect to me is rubbish. Its just a way to keep you playing and ties you in more. I would like the skills to go up based on how much you actually use something, mods, ships etc. The more you use it the higher your skill levels.



Sunk costs are sunk--i.e. you should not let such costs influence current decisions.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online