Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You overdramatize the matter. An example: It takes minutes to train basic market skills to set up orders and buy/sell things. I takes a longer training time to set up more orders, more efficient orders, orders further out. The market activity in itself is not gated beyond for more than a couple of minutes, the very deep and complex variations of the market, however, are opened up to you via more skilling into this niche. Even without having access to 308 market orders and 21 contracts, they can act in and influence the market if they learn how to do it. There is no need for them to have all these advanced aspects of the profession available to them in order to learn, progress and improve in trading. Calling that "not playing the niche" is borderline questionable. I am not quite sure what you want to express with "git gud", but motivation and determination is not restricted by having to skill several skills and levels in order to unlock more slots to trade with, more range and better reputation with the brokers. Instead, it can even have positive effects on motivation and determination, for instance, by setting yourself the goal to have X billion more ISK until you reach Tycoon V in order to be able to effectively use the new trade slots, or Y points of more standing towards Z numbers of corps in order to trade with less fees/taxes wasted on brokers until you reach Accounting V or Daytrading IV. Except for a select few niches, you can play any niche in the game very early on, but you have to progress with skills to become better at them in terms of more, more varied, and more accessible tools and sub-tools. The gating that you see is next to not existent in EVE -- if you have the right expectations and do not expect rainbow-spewing Ninja Unicorns with huge horns. If toning down and adjusting your expectations to the reality is a problem for you, EVE does the society a nice service in teaching you this lesson.

With regards to the mentioned list of games: What makes me wonder is how you want to apply or compare things like region locks to access new gear (Metroid, Cities, Thief, Zelda ...)? On the other hand, most of these games have some form of level lock for further content of the game just like EVE. Street Fighter? You need to move through stages and win against bosses to unlock the next level of stages. Halo? You need go increase your character level in order to use more and better weapons or even gain access to a new area. Sim City? Level lock by requiring you to have a certain number of citizens in your city to gain access to new buildings. Civ (only judging from Civ: Beyond Earth)? Research facilities need to be built and maintained in order for them to research and unlock new tech and higher levels of tech. Only to name a few things that I have played myself.

The flaw in your comparison between my argument and you analogy is that you buy the character once. You do not invest 160 EUR each month into the game to keep that character unlike your system where you need to invest that money and more in order to keep your dream of a weekly B-R going.

Yet most of the games in the list you linked and endorsed require one or another form of level grinding, area grinding, biomass grinding or research facility NPC kinda research point grinding for interesting options, and a grind, I might say, that is particularly boring in EVE if you trust many other people. Interestingly enough, your quote leaves out the part of my message stating exactly this. So, what is it now?

Trying to invalidate the idea of lots of mini-B-Rs with (any type of) pricing

Irrelevant if that's what those subs are there for. They can set up newbie corps for figuring out how to produce capitals or can try to ninja the resources from a main sovereignty or can just farm FW, of which is plenty more content.

Trying to invalidate the idea of mini-B-Rs with the idea that other games have experience progression systems

Huge appeal on tradition. Sports games are some of the most played. MOBAs are some of the most played, with the highest PCUs -- these may have leveling systems, but those are unnecessary for a fair field, diverse roster, and competitive play. Furthermore, there's no experience system after the max level. Saving up for a character, though, is the same as saving up for a ship.

Thereof, the post with the game list has a very specific criteria for "an experience system". If there's a problem with some games on that list, it's best taking it up as a reply to that post. Yet, region locks aren't really an experience system; and story experiences sometimes require "gating" to introduce characters and places and ideas.

Trying to explain that buying a character with max SP is somehow better than every character having max SP (while simultaneously criticizing the latter's minimal purchases but not the former's expensive purchase)

What's great about the idea of mini-B-Rs, with carriers just requiring production and an ISK purchase, is that PLEX funding is completely unnecessary. It's a simple contrast: there are options. If they can't fully fit the carrier from a single PLEX, maybe they go make dank dosh with it until they can; or maybe the PLEX sale stops, the cost returns to 1.3B+, and the complete purchase is already basically there.

With gameplay, 1.5B is completely within reason. Again, that's like PLEXing the character. That's a goal and plausibly a great experience. If they're willing to bet 1.5B on that idea, that's fine. Whatever happens is a form of reinforcement, and it's a learning experience. The information on motivation theories says the freedom to learn is a must.

"I can't figure out how letting a player bet a large amount of ISK, if they have learned nothing about the game, is helpful."

Why would they "bet" that carrier if they have no clue about the game? "He will need a veteran player"? That's great, as it's listed in this thread as the whole point of SP: relatedness. The cool part is that now they're learning whatever requires competence. That's, literally, another of the motivation keys.

"Really, guys, B-Rs can happen.. with SP and the fresh implementation of JF."

From what pilots? For what aspects of intrinsic motivation? Obviously, this is unconvincing.

Trying to imply that the idea is only valid if newbies can get in carriers as their first experience

*Silence*

Oh, and Homeworld did have gating. You had to research ships before you could build them, IIRC. Makes me wonder about the rest of the list.

Edit: I'm talking about the player vs. cpu battles, not the story line game, although that had gating too as the story went along you were handed new technologies.

As for the list of sports, makes me wonder if the person who made it ever played a sport. There are levels in sporting events. A brand new swimmer for example, will be prevented from certain swim meets unless they have a proof of time (i.e. from an official event). For example, brand new swimmers do not go straight to the Olympics. This is true right on down to the 5 year olds who start swimming. Their first meet will be a meet open to swimmers of all levels. There they'll get their first official time. And as they improve and get faster and faster times bigger and more competitive meets will be "unlocked".

Of course, all this ignores the fundamental issue of equating the functions of a wide variety of vastly different games as if they had some relevance.

IE: Sports thriving on assured fairness in confrontations and limiting any concept of persistence in gameplay to a single instance of the game (though subjectively one could still argue personal athletic development over a career is equivalent to character development in an RPG, but meh) vs a persistent space RPG featuring immortal pod people in a single , persistent, largely free form group interaction.

Am I seriously expected to have to defend the idea that EVE is less persistent than real life?

#justEVEthings

And deny them the richness of choice that comes from carefully tending their skill queue for years? Do you take me for some kind of monster?

Why in the world is one of the worst ideas ever posted in F&I in the history of eve still on page one??????

It isn't cherrypicking when I use an example ship that many aspire to and several were lost. It wasn't even the most numerous ship lost. You consider 1.5 bil cheap yet many in the game do not. You think it is trivial for a new player to earn that amount of ISK but do tell how? I'd very much like to earn that amount trivially thank you very much.

Oh and another minor point...where would the new players buy these carriers and dreads etc? They certainly aren't in the main hubs. You think they would just hop on down to nullsec and buy them then hop back out with a happy little skip in their collective new player steps? They would not have a clue where and how to source these ships, if they were to build them they would need to do so in whatever section of space allows them to which isn't hisec that's for sure. This brings in the need to create a large social group for mutual protection gathering a large number of resources and defended an area where these ships would be built and stored ready for use. Meanwhile all the existing large and well funded groups would simply ignore this activity and in no way try to steal/stomp all over this vast investment in assets that's just shown up.

I'm pretty sure that the vast number of pilots involved in B-R were in sub-cap ships. New players could easily have been involved in such fleets (nullsec corp entry requirements not withstanding). The number of players actually doing anything beyond sitting in 10% TiDi waiting for hours to be told when and on who to hit F1.

And there is another point. You think the big nullsec groups would just say 'Well that's SP out the window as a measure of pilot readiness, let's just let everyone in then...'? It won't happen. They would have another means to determine who to let join instead.

You are proposing to remove the very core of the game and allow anyone to fly everything for the reason that 'they would have more fun'. This is clearly a fallacy as any new player buying an expensive ship would most likely rage quit as they wouldn't understand why they lost the ship. Carebears whine when they lose blingy mission boats and they most likely know this can happen. Imagine how disheartening it would be for a new player in their officer fit raven when an assault frigate locks it down and slowly eats it.

There is absolutely no way you can prove that removing skills would make the game 'more fun' or improve player retention as the consequences of doing so would rely upon whilst also changing so many variables within the game. There are however many players here (and many with much more experience than I have) telling you it would be incredibly damaging to the existing game and player base.

No idea, just wasted a few minutes of my life here, I want a refund.

Character progression, grinding and skill building have been a feature of most RPG/FPS/Action games for as far as RPG and video games have existed. Many, many players EXPECT and ANTICIPATE that grinding and leveling, that is half the fun of such a game. It was for me. Still is to a point.

By the time it isn't fun anymore, well you are a vet and it doesn't matter anymore.

They can only be flown if you can fund and source them both of which a new player will not be able to do without interacting with the nullsec groups who would promptly stomp all over anyone who buys a bunch of carriers. Accessabilty of 1.5 bil ships is already limited due to the resources required to build them, the locations required to build them and the level of system control required to allow a character to build them and safely move them around. All of which takes a lot of player knowledge let alone character skills.

I also don't think that dropping about £20 for a ship if I can't gather the (now hamstrung since the markets are in chaos) resources required to miraculously build it safely myself somewhere is a 'cheap' option. I personally would be pretty annoyed to have to spend that on top of a monthly sub to fly a 'cheap' ship which will be a huge target for anyone and everyone in the space where it can actually be flown. And a fleet of 20 noobs in carriers would be hotdropped in short order by one of the big groups. Probably the same one that sold them the ships in the first place then followed them out to wherever the noob base is assuming they get the ships there safely in the first place. This is unlikely as new players will have no clue how to safely and quickly move that amount of ships and secure them for use. With the 1.5 bil you are also ignoring the required modules, implants, drugs, fighters etc required to make the carrier hull any use whatsoever.

So we are supposed to imagine a group of 20 players saying 'Hey, let's all get carriers for a battle...', they source the ship hulls etc spending the equivalent of probably £25 each in the process, miraculously get those ships somewhere safely, then go out and find another group to fight which happens to have done just the same thing, all lose these ships in glorious balls of flame and then say 'Hey, that was great! I'm off to buy another ship to do it again!'

That would not be fun for those new pilots. It would be mind-numbingly crushing to their expectations of the game.