Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Don't keep me in suspense. I'm on the edge of my seat wondering why Meta4 is the only useful meta level, because apparently it isn't just because of the stat parity with T2.

People sub to this game because they enjoy it. The timeframe in which one has to sub of forfeit the ability to play doesn't allow for significant SP to accrue. This means that every current player exists in disagreement with your premise and did play and enjoy the game with low SP. Recall for a moment that part of gaming motivation includes interaction and challenge, both of which are facilitated by SP, the former by creating interdependence for competencies you lack and the latter by creating comparative measures of raw power to overcome through creativity and/or skill.

Predictability isn't reliant on the tool set. It can't be for play to be unpredictable since the toolset is largely static. Also, while the motivation of the skill queue is extrinsic, that's a non issue as removing SP doesn't create any intrinsic motivation as you claim. Rather the intrinsic motivation to find solutions with more limited characters is removed from the game for the extrinsic satisfaction of immediate access to "big ships." This is even more problematic because that extrinsic satisfaction would only be felt by those who had experience with the SP system prior and only leaves a lack of an intrinsic motivator.

The reward for subbing is playing, and as stated above we all thought that reward worthwhile while still in our trial periods. Besides that you were never able to tell me in this supposedly linear training progression what comes after and before HAC V. If it's linear you should be able to tell what it is just from my current position. Further, that progression into more specialized tools is designed to assure competence with more general tools to keep that Raven pilot from being locked in should they find issue with it.

I feel great and not awful about my total eve experience, so yes, it can be said.

The former statement is a black and white fallacy. Subscriptions can enjoy the game and disagree with the idea of the SP system or find negative effect. Furthermore, interdependence can come much more from unresticted sandbox design, because the average class size trends for increase. That is challenge.. requiring more creativity and skillfulness. Moving carrier fleets around requires logistics and strategy, as do finding farming areas and hauling resources.

This predictability statement makes no sense. If it's trying to say that limited options can't become repetitive and of predictable gameplay, it's really vague. If the implication is also that no corps stagnate from limited SP, that's also a really low quality assessment. As well, how are more options, more effectiveness from getting the baseline stats, and more diversity and depth for the whole game not all about intrinsic motivation? Are you saying nothing about the game is fun? It's all about extrinsic reward? The implication that there's no intrinsic value in learning those fresh playstyles and fleet comps and whatever else comes from, say, industrial viability is worthless. Any intrinsic value in playing with limited SP abounds without it.

So there's less reward with fewer play options?

Are you also saying there's nothing predictable about getting to HACs? There's quite the list of requirements that increases per faction. Are you saying there's some value in telling you exactly when and how you'll take out the trash and clean? That seems pretty underwhelming.

That isn't the question.

Technically, there is a RNG process in invention (Tech 2) as well.

But there are usually alot more T2 for sale for a specific item than the meta 4 variant, so the RNG may favor T2.

Interdependence and socialization -- the same socialization potential that increases with more SP and decreases with less? Also, is that post not clear? It says interdependence right in that quote, that more is required from a more dangerous average. If the average fleet is more dangerous, more skill is required to win.

Socialization is not dependent on SP. In fact there are groups that show preference to low SP.

"Carrier logistics" is more than just flying carriers, but developing them also. More demand is more transport and plausibly more required farming.

Which is wholly irrelevant regarding your proposed argument that proliferating carrier logistics increases logistical challenges since it increases the ease of moving the resources fueling that activity vs alternatives. This is on top of the fact that such a surge would likely only be temporary if it occurred at all unless those carriers were more prone to loss, and with that metric in mind less efficient alternative are actually better.

Maybe that's because frigates are the first open class, and they're small and fast. The design philosophy of a lot of large instigations, everywhere, is both plausible and supposedly the goal. A "B-R" of frigates is of little effect for the economy or news or interest, because the other fleet can just upship. There's little upshipping with capitals, and if that becomes about being competitive with the capital fleets that are already in the game, then there can actually be "content" over something (freshly designed or already in the game). Nothing can challenge the largest sovereignties without equal gameplay options.

No, the meta has been largely determined by cumulative changes in mobility and performance at the lower levels causing larger ships to fall behind in favorability when it comes to skirmishing and roaming. That isn't to say that large ships have lost their role, but even stationary elements for sov have fallen prey to small ship harassment tactics.

And the biggest current asset wielded by a sov coalition is several thousand strong membership, knowledge of sov warfare and deep pockets of isk and resources to fund themselves. No new player entity can even remotely hope to provide something remotely resembling competent resistance to the point of creating a new B-R.

Is this literally saying that no intrinsic motivation comes from video games? Why would the NPE video discuss switching over to intrinsic motivation, frankly? Why even post this?

How can a class playstyle be learned if it's locked? SP prevents gameplay options, thus preventing that experience.

By definition, no, intrinsic motivations don't come from games. Rather games allow an arena for intrinsic motivations to be expressed and compete. So the switch is easily described, allow players to find their way organically into goals and means rather than the NPC based extrinsic reward system. Again, the game can't give intrinsic motivation, it can just get out of the way of it.

As far as advanced roles, those are evolutions of of simple roles so the experience gained before they are accessible contributes to them.

From another post,

"EVE skills are largely the same. There are a few ways to completely ignore some mechanics, yes. I can choose to go full combat and put nothing into trading.. But take trading. Once you have Industrial I, Trading I and Contracting I, that's largely going to be what you need mechanically to be a market trader. You certainly won't be a titan of industry or anything, but from there on out all the skills are "What I can do now, only more so."

So that's not really an 'opportunity cost', considering your options are to become better at what you've chosen to do... or become better at what you've chosen to do in a different order.

Follow that thread if you like, but I'm not going to argue the existence of infinitesimal opportunity cost in choosing between "Adv. Industry I" vs. "Mass Production II" for the next spot in my skill queue."

So your argument now is to marginalize SP to minimize the idea of meaningful skill choices, but at the same time argue that same system is entirely and strongly detrimental to the overall game experience because it's holding people back to a significant degree?

How do those 2 positions reconcile with each other?

Either there is little meaning in those choices and thus the system as a whole has little gameplay effect and thus can't be as detrimental as you claim, or there is some meaning in them. And if there is we have coherent arguments regarding SP providing challenges to overcome, providing meaningful decision making and promoting cooperation between complementary competencies.

I feel great about a lot of the EVE experience, but I've quit because of SP limitations. It obviously happens. There's nothing interesting about being told "no" for very basic features of a sandbox game.

Good thing you aren't that limited. It just seems your intrinsic motivation wasn't enough to sustain your interest nor enough to drive interaction with the tools you had. And it won't for everyone, but that's not a bad thing, though at the same time it doesn't make the game bad due to everyone not liking it.

Y'all need to train the "reply using quotes instead of with bolding" skill up a level

You can only have so many quotes, else we would.

So, if learning how a ship plays is limited by SP, that's a problem for intrinsic motivation.

Multiple posts yo



No, it's a benefit to motivation. It's motivation to think creatively and figure out how to use lower level ships in different ways, as opposed to blindly following a guide you found online.

It's one of the great things about EVE. It's one of the reasons I quit all other MMOs I used to play.

"Feels uninteresting" sounds characteristic of a lack of intrinsic motivation. The issue seems to be the need to have one thing at your disposal rather than being motivated to explore the limits of another. Will that go away if you have all the things?

If you can't enjoy low level hauling will you like being a JF pilot?

If you can't find a thrill in frigate PvP when will you start? Cruisers? Battleships? Titans? Never?

Will having a hulk over a venture make you like mining more?

What is the turning point that supposedly makes the game so much more palatable and enjoyable with everything accessible?

Given the fact thaht was literally the only reason I kept playing EVE, you are wrong.

You are 100% against the idea of a sandbox. you don't seem to have any clue what a sandbox game means.

EVE isn't a video game, it's a hobby. Stop trying to push your freshmen in college philosophy course "insight" and realize where you are.