These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#341 - 2015-10-07 17:52:32 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
..The Nyx. It costs ~28 bil.

That's cherrypicking, but here's a "reply" from this very thread: [reply snipped]

No, it is not. You keep on bringing it up. For a new player to participate in a B-R type event in a Nyx or Titan, he'd have to make a substantial investment in PLEX to sell on the market. And that is assuming he doesn't lose the damn thing as soon as he gets in it.

Cutting out the quote that replies to this very idea? Here. That's no "substantial amount of PLEX" at all. The original statement is that 1.5B is insignificant. Are you making a point?



archon /= to nyx.

also at the price listed there that would be 2 plex so 30USD above your sub price.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#342 - 2015-10-07 18:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Dror wrote:
Contrasting the prevalence of experience-type progression is a fallacy: appeal on tradition. There's a neat list of games without experience progression. A fresh sub already "can't compete" with those already playing the game, because they have no clue of the values of market items, ship and role effectiveness, fleet comps, demand, resource locations, etc. If they can't learn, why play? Can it really be said that they're learning, if they're not playing the niche? Can it really be said that they're enjoying progression, if the very basic nuances of motivation, defined by 100s of research articles and meta-discussions, are replaced with "git gud"?

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.

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
#343 - 2015-10-07 18:24:18 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dror wrote:
Contrasting the prevalence of experience-type progression is a fallacy: appeal on tradition. There's a neat list of games without experience progression. A fresh sub already "can't compete" with those already playing the game, because they have no clue of the values of market items, ship and role effectiveness, fleet comps, demand, resource locations, etc. If they can't learn, why play? Can it really be said that they're learning, if they're not playing the niche? Can it really be said that they're enjoying progression, if the very basic nuances of motivation, defined by 100s of research articles and meta-discussions, are replaced with "git gud"?

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..

I made it to here. Maybe players come to this game to not grind a bunch of "levels" for interesting options.

Lady Rift wrote:
archon /= to nyx.

also at the price listed there that would be 2 plex so 30USD above your sub price.

Well, I guess I could've inb4'd.

That's missing the whole of the idea. The point is accessibility. Lots of consistent, 20v20, 1B carriers is the same as a 1000v1000, B-R-style, titan fest.

"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
#344 - 2015-10-07 19:00:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Dror wrote:
I made it to here. Maybe players come to this game to not grind a bunch of "levels" for interesting options.

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?

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.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#345 - 2015-10-07 19:34:52 UTC
Dror wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Dror wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
..The Nyx. It costs ~28 bil.

That's cherrypicking, but here's a "reply" from this very thread: [reply snipped]

No, it is not. You keep on bringing it up. For a new player to participate in a B-R type event in a Nyx or Titan, he'd have to make a substantial investment in PLEX to sell on the market. And that is assuming he doesn't lose the damn thing as soon as he gets in it.

Cutting out the quote that replies to this very idea? Here. That's no "substantial amount of PLEX" at all. The original statement is that 1.5B is insignificant. Are you making a point?


Now it is simply a matter of degrees. So instead of wasting a few hundred dollars the player has to waste something closer to $40. If, on my first day, I logged in, sold 2 PLEX got 2-2.3 billion ISK and then promptly lost 70-75% of that ISK (at the least, because if this super genius zero patience player is like some of us veterans his carrier will likely be backed with different fittings)...I'd not be terribly happy.

And lets continue with this insipid fantasy.... He still wont be able to participate.

What corporation is he in on day one? Oh yeah, a noob corp. Where is his cyno chain? Where is the carrier he bought, was if fully fit? Coms? Getting in fleet? Does he understand how cap works, jump fuel, or will he know how to use fitting services in case he has to swap out a module?

To overcome all of this and stuff I didn't think of he'll need....you guessed it a veteran player. A player to get him in a player corp, help him sort his carrier fittings, move it, get comms set up, and explain how certain things work. And realistically speaking...that could take weeks if not months to teach him all those things.

There was nothing stopping a new player from going into B-R when that fight took place. There was nothing, in theory, stopping a new player from getting in his noob ship and flying to that system and getting killed. The things that prevented a new player from going to B-R on day one are still present even if skills and skill points are removed.

To be quite honest, a statement of the nature of, without skills/skill points a new player could get into a B-R type fight on day one, has to be one of the dumbest things I've seen written on these forums. Congratulations. Roll

"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
#346 - 2015-10-07 19:49:32 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Dror wrote:
I made it to here. Maybe players come to this game to not grind a bunch of "levels" for interesting options.

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*

    "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.

    Mag's
    Azn Empire
    #347 - 2015-10-07 19:59:49 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    *Silence*
    One can but hope.

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

    Teckos Pech
    Hogyoku
    Goonswarm Federation
    #348 - 2015-10-07 20:07:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
    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".

    "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

    Aerasia
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #349 - 2015-10-07 22:34:57 UTC
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Oh, and Homeworld did have gating.
    Lol

    It also had gating because you didn't start with infinite resources.

    And Quake had gating because they didn't give you all the guns to start.

    And Football has gating because they make you cross the yard lines (and in sequential order! Shocked) before you're allowed to score any points.

    Roll

    No, but seriously: did it actually take you all week to come up with "They don't let 5 year olds in the Olympics"?
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #350 - 2015-10-07 22:46:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
    Aerasia wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Oh, and Homeworld did have gating.
    Lol

    It also had gating because you didn't start with infinite resources.

    And Quake had gating because they didn't give you all the guns to start.

    And Football has gating because they make you cross the yard lines (and in sequential order! Shocked) before you're allowed to score any points.

    Roll

    No, but seriously: did it actually take you all week to come up with "They don't let 5 year olds in the Olympics"?
    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.
    Teckos Pech
    Hogyoku
    Goonswarm Federation
    #351 - 2015-10-07 23:14:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
    Aerasia wrote:
    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Oh, and Homeworld did have gating.
    Lol

    It also had gating because you didn't start with infinite resources.

    And Quake had gating because they didn't give you all the guns to start.

    And Football has gating because they make you cross the yard lines (and in sequential order! Shocked) before you're allowed to score any points.

    Roll

    No, but seriously: did it actually take you all week to come up with "They don't let 5 year olds in the Olympics"?


    Well if the 5 year olds can handle it...what's your problem with it? Roll

    "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

    Aerasia
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #352 - 2015-10-08 06:44:26 UTC
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Sports thriving on assured fairness in confrontations and limiting any concept of persistence in gameplay to a single instance of the game
    Am I seriously expected to have to defend the idea that EVE is less persistent than real life?

    #justEVEthings

    Teckos Pech wrote:
    Well if the 5 year olds can handle it...what's your problem with it?
    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?
    Corraidhin Farsaidh
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #353 - 2015-10-08 08:36:25 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    ...
    That's cherrypicking, but here's a "reply" from this very thread:

    ...


    #It wasn't cherrypicking at all, it was a perfectly valid calculation of the rough cost for a new player to simply buy their way into a supercarrier. Let's look at a list of losses from B-R5 as you keep using this as a reference point

    The 21 hour-long conflict resulted in the loss of 75 Titans, 13 Super Carriers, 370 Dreadnoughts, and 123 Carriers, along with thousands of smaller ships and innumerable fighters and drones

    Total $300000-$330000 real money investment.

    Now I picked the nyx which is in the Super Carrier class of which 13 were lost, I could have picked one of the titans at ~80 billion Isk cost of which ~6x were lost. The newer lower SP players would mostly have fallen into the 'thousands of smaller ships' class. It doesn't take very long to be able to fit and fly a tech I battleship at all level III or even IV skills. In that time you will be learning how to actually use those skills and plan ahead on what to train next (whilst learning that all your choices have a consequence).

    You are saying that removing any skill requirements would result in many 20x20 carrier fights or similar. That means 40 players dropping 80 PLEX above their collective subs per battle. Do you really truly think this would happen?

    I am yet to see an example of any computer based game where there is no concept of leveling or progression through some form of gated means.

    I am yet to see any reasonable reason why CCP would even consider removing a system that runs through the very core of everything in the game.

    I have yet to see any real proof that the market would survive such an enormous change to the balance between materials and ship usage. I doubt that it would, especially since simplifying things by removing any skill requirements would simply increase supply drastically except for those tightly controlled moon goo goods that come from null.

    In short the removal of skills altogether would break everything that actually matters about EvE.
    Daniela Doran
    Doomheim
    #354 - 2015-10-08 08:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Daniela Doran
    Why in the world is one of the worst ideas ever posted in F&I in the history of eve still on page one??????
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #355 - 2015-10-08 09:04:51 UTC
    Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    ...
    That's cherrypicking, but here's a "reply" from this very thread:

    ...


    #It wasn't cherrypicking at all, it was a perfectly valid calculation of the rough cost for a new player to simply buy their way into a supercarrier. Let's look at a list of losses from B-R5 as you keep using this as a reference point

    The 21 hour-long conflict resulted in the loss of 75 Titans, 13 Super Carriers, 370 Dreadnoughts, and 123 Carriers, along with thousands of smaller ships and innumerable fighters and drones

    Total $300000-$330000 real money investment.

    Now I picked the nyx which is in the Super Carrier class of which 13 were lost, I could have picked one of the titans at ~80 billion Isk cost of which ~6x were lost. The newer lower SP players would mostly have fallen into the 'thousands of smaller ships' class. It doesn't take very long to be able to fit and fly a tech I battleship at all level III or even IV skills. In that time you will be learning how to actually use those skills and plan ahead on what to train next (whilst learning that all your choices have a consequence).

    You are saying that removing any skill requirements would result in many 20x20 carrier fights or similar. That means 40 players dropping 80 PLEX above their collective subs per battle. Do you really truly think this would happen?

    I am yet to see an example of any computer based game where there is no concept of leveling or progression through some form of gated means.

    I am yet to see any reasonable reason why CCP would even consider removing a system that runs through the very core of everything in the game.

    I have yet to see any real proof that the market would survive such an enormous change to the balance between materials and ship usage. I doubt that it would, especially since simplifying things by removing any skill requirements would simply increase supply drastically except for those tightly controlled moon goo goods that come from null.

    In short the removal of skills altogether would break everything that actually matters about EvE.

    It is cherrypicking, and that would be a simple realization with decent reading comprehension.

    How does the PLEX price of a titan make the cheap price of a carrier any less valid?

    Dror wrote:
    That's missing the whole of the idea. The point is accessibility. Lots of consistent, 20v20, 1B carriers is the same as a 1000v1000, B-R-style, titan fest.

    Dror wrote:
    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.

    "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
    #356 - 2015-10-08 10:48:57 UTC
    Dror wrote:

    ...my stuff...
    It is cherrypicking, and that would be a simple realization with decent reading comprehension.

    How does the PLEX price of a titan make the cheap price of a carrier any less valid?

    Dror wrote:
    That's missing the whole of the idea. The point is accessibility. Lots of consistent, 20v20, 1B carriers is the same as a 1000v1000, B-R-style, titan fest.

    Dror wrote:
    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.


    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.
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #357 - 2015-10-08 12:12:02 UTC
    Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    What's great about the idea of mini-B-Rs, with carriers just requiring production and an ISK purchase,

    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.

    Nah, they would not rage quit, they would just buy another Plex or purchase ISK and shrug it off, which is the entire point behind Dror's vision.

    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.

    Starrakatt
    Celtic Anarchy
    Dead Terrorists
    #358 - 2015-10-08 13:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Starrakatt
    Daniela Doran wrote:
    Why in the world is one of the worst ideas ever posted in F&I in the history of eve still on page one??????

    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.
    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #359 - 2015-10-08 15:17:22 UTC
    Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    It is cherrypicking, and that would be a simple realization with decent reading comprehension.

    How does the PLEX price of a titan make the cheap price of a carrier any less valid?

    Dror wrote:
    That's missing the whole of the idea. The point is accessibility. Lots of consistent, 20v20, 1B carriers is the same as a 1000v1000, B-R-style, titan fest.

    Dror wrote:
    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.


    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.

    It's an irrelevant point. The same could be said about the game now, and there seems no point in the idea of inaccessibility (as is evidenced by all of the motivation research), except the motivation to get or be around that gameplay. There's a mystery in the possibility of purchasing or finding rarities. If there's no such mystery in the options available on a fresh sub, isn't that predictability?

    So, isn't it predictability that B-Rs are of low plausibility because of JF and the limited availability of capitals? There's no evidence that the possibility of 20B-50B ships effects the accessibility of 1.5B ships. So, if those cheap carriers are still purchased and flown, that's the crux of an interesting, B-R style of meta. The whole is getting interest in these ships. There's only interest if they can be flown.

    "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
    #360 - 2015-10-08 15:43:20 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    ...

    So, isn't it predictability that B-Rs are of low plausibility because of JF and the limited availability of capitals? There's no evidence that the possibility of 20B-50B ships effects the accessibility of 1.5B ships. So, if those cheap carriers are still purchased and flown, that's the crux of an interesting, B-R style of meta. The whole is getting interest in these ships. There's only interest if they can be flown.


    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.