These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Caleb Seremshur
Mortis Angelus
The morgue.
#101 - 2015-08-06 08:32:09 UTC
I would like to take a moment to point out that noone seems to have considered the tangent of the game allowing players to play for free but not gain any SP on any character. By free I mean specifically not paying real $ for a sub or buying plex from the market and converting that in to training time.

It's a direction EVE could have considered going many years ago now when it introduced PLEX. I remember reading one of the csm notes years ago about how they found a large number of wealthy high SP characters had left and were interested in the reasons why.

Well I have a few possible explanations:
A pvp player with no interest in grinding money or training indy skills - beyond a certain sp limit his value derived from the game drops sharply

A titan pilot. Dat steel coffin.

A pos manager or industry specialist.

Or really any other person who reaches the end of their interest limits with training in EVE and struggles to rationalise continuing to pay for the game when all personal goals have been reached.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#102 - 2015-08-06 09:12:58 UTC
Lugues Slive wrote:
...

I would have them learn to choose the appropriate ship for the task at hand and the skills they have. Basic combat and tank skills and say cruiser 2-3 could easily run lvl 2 missions.

Edit: and I expect veteran pilots to give positive advice to new player instead of telling them they are worthless and can't play. I gave many alts with almost no skills and I still enjoy taking them out for a pleasure cruise in t1 fit dessies and frigs. There is a lot of fun to be had at low sp.


Tech I destroyers can run up to level III's with care and level IV skills, all achievable within the time it takes to get standings for level III missions. My algos is still one of my favourite ships.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#103 - 2015-08-06 11:16:30 UTC
Lugues Slive wrote:
Edit: and I expect veteran pilots to give positive advice to new player instead of telling them they are worthless and can't play. I gave many alts with almost no skills and I still enjoy taking them out for a pleasure cruise in t1 fit dessies and frigs. There is a lot of fun to be had at low sp.


Good luck.

Many folks want pilots who can fly doctrine fits, or have a certain SP minimum (as "proof" that they know what they're doing), or any number of conditions to help exclude rookies from their ranks.

There is a lot of fun to be had in small, cheap ships. This is true regardless how many SP you have.

It is player skill, not SP, that determines how effective a high SP character is. The same applies to low SP characters. SP doesn't really matter except to place an arbitrary time restriction on accessing certain pieces of content such as flying capital ships.
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
#104 - 2015-08-06 13:12:22 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Lugues Slive wrote:
...

I would have them learn to choose the appropriate ship for the task at hand and the skills they have. Basic combat and tank skills and say cruiser 2-3 could easily run lvl 2 missions.

Edit: and I expect veteran pilots to give positive advice to new player instead of telling them they are worthless and can't play. I gave many alts with almost no skills and I still enjoy taking them out for a pleasure cruise in t1 fit dessies and frigs. There is a lot of fun to be had at low sp.


Tech I destroyers can run up to level III's with care and level IV skills, all achievable within the time it takes to get standings for level III missions. My algos is still one of my favourite ships.


Just ran a 4/10 in a poorly fit on for fun. Took longer than in a HAC but was fun the whole time. Big smile
Lugues Slive
Diamond Light Industries
#105 - 2015-08-06 13:20:26 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Lugues Slive wrote:
Edit: and I expect veteran pilots to give positive advice to new player instead of telling them they are worthless and can't play. I gave many alts with almost no skills and I still enjoy taking them out for a pleasure cruise in t1 fit dessies and frigs. There is a lot of fun to be had at low sp.


Good luck.

Many folks want pilots who can fly doctrine fits, or have a certain SP minimum (as "proof" that they know what they're doing), or any number of conditions to help exclude rookies from their ranks.

There is a lot of fun to be had in small, cheap ships. This is true regardless how many SP you have.

It is player skill, not SP, that determines how effective a high SP character is. The same applies to low SP characters. SP doesn't really matter except to place an arbitrary time restriction on accessing certain pieces of content such as flying capital ships.



The proof that they know what they are doing is the whole point of my argument. Skill training sets a pace for new players to learn the game. You don't need to fly doctrine ships before you learn the game. You can learn tackle techniques in a rookie ship if you want, but you still learn how to pick targets, get in close, and try to stay alive.

And I have joined a few corps with doctrine ships that I could not fly, and they were fine with it as long as I was willing to train towards it. My first RL boss once told me, "Don't let the job posting tell you you're not qualified, make the interviewer tell you in person." Most requirements are general, and if you have the ambition, they will look past a few deficiencies.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2015-09-25 10:43:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
An interesting discussion is producing the following idea (which is probably only worth the read if interested in the premise of an EVE-like game with multiple times its average PCU):

What Plausibly Happens with Removed SP
Capital Ships: The Game
Capital Escalations, Carrier/SuperCarrier ratting.. yeah. Mineral prices skyrocket like crazy due to the mass ISK generation and capital ship construction
Supers fighting supers to protect super fetuses
B-R gameplay consistently
Subs flooding the game from all the stories

Why is this relevant? What makes this seem interesting?
A common idea is that B-R stories are a main and effective advertisement. Setting up lots of skirmishes is supposedly CCP's main design direction.

Per CCP, "There's a ton of information [and evidence] on how intrinsic motivation is much better for creativity and engagement. Extrinsic rewards erode motivation, focus the gameplay on the reward structure, help de-track other goals and ideas, and develop dependence on those rewards for a guide." An "experience" system (SP) is an extrinsic reward.

Expectations
Why would fresh subs expect B-R? More on point, why would fresh subs come for B-R? Some studies would list these game traits as fantasy, socialization, and competence. They're interested in the skillfulness of flying well, socialization and teamwork, and the story aspect of the experience.

So, what comes with that fantasy? Most spaceship-game progression is completely about flying bigger ships. That lines up with this game's story of massive capitals. Then there's the experience of flying multiple types of ships, in support of the capital fleet, protecting their production -- competence and mastery.

What happens where none of these expectations are met, through limited engagements and fitting and ship options? So the expectations are "Capitals: The Game"?


Common Criticisms
  • Tidi
  • An abundance of capitals can be limited as necessary through ISK payouts like bounties or another tweak of their appeal; and there are already few enough reasons for merging a bunch of fleets in one place. Those capitals can be anywhere, and they'll get caught more regularly. If that still ends up in poor infrastructure response, it's probably within fix.

  • Rifters costing 50M
  • It's unreasonable, the idea that the market could support enough caps for over-inflating itself, especially from affording frigates. Either both are semi-affordable, or neither are. What's the probability, a few cap investments empty the market? Then what? It fills back up. This either stabilizes or stays that way or gets patched in some form. Characters benefit from keeping prices low, so there's plenty of reason for min-maxing whatever defines that. In this case, it's plausibly just mining and producing ships. This also has the benefit of providing that "I'm making ships" feeling and of evening out the supply vs the demand that's, purportedly, majorly in favor of demand.

    There are also limitations on cap construction that can be dynamically enforced by strategy. X-Alliance is silent, probably farming? Better take their systems.

  • Alts Online: Security Status Becomes Worthless
  • Sec status could be tied to the account.

  • Other forms of "Alts Online"
  • One account allows one ship in space. More accounts require more subs. It's like asking what would happen if more subs joined the game.

  • Every ship being a faction ship or something
  • There are obvious limitations on ship production, including through LP, as well as limitations coming from funding options. What's the alternative, liquid ISK and assets keep stacking? The reason for spending ISK is a threat; and a threat requires initiative, which requires efficiency, which requires freedom.

    "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.

    Dantes Wolf
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #107 - 2015-09-25 12:52:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dantes Wolf
    Frankly, though I've personally spend 6 years trying to hone my skilltree in this game, I gotta say: I absolutely love the idea - I'd be well off, having lived here for the better part of six years = I know what I'm doing, and it'd get me a long way.

    However, your idea will never happen, for these two reasons:

    Arrow Too many people, with far too much to loose, has invested far too much time, to let this idea come to pass - had it been a factor from day 1, yes, then maybe, but only maybe, for the following, and next, reason:

    Arrow CCP is running a business, and, though we all love the game, we gotta be fair and square, and simply say it like it is: it is, ultimately, not that great.

    What makes it great is the ability to, and need/lust for, revenge: You join EVE, you get f*cked, and the race to get back at the guy who f*cked you up, is, pretty much, all it's about, that be business as well as common ships: Basicly, the game is ONLY competition, and without skilltree's, noone's gonna feel like, "they have the edge", which this game is so much about. - Even the miners, that needs higher yields and more minerals, needs it: Edge.

    It's ALL this game is about.

    CCP knows that, and they know, that if they cut out the skilltrees, they cut out the backbone of their income: The hypnotic trance, that there is always, somehow, somewhere, something to make better, even if you take breaks for years.

    It's that simple

    So, beautiful as your idea might seem, it is just money, and power, that stops it.

    That and the fact, that the game would simply die, with your proposal.

    D.

    "Before you diagnose yourself with low selfesteem and depression, you should first make sure, that you are not just, in fact, surrounded by assholes".

    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #108 - 2015-09-30 09:51:57 UTC
    Dantes Wolf wrote:
    Too many people, with far too much to loose, has invested far too much time, to let this idea come to pass - had it been a factor from day 1, yes, then maybe, but only maybe, for the following, and next, reason:

    CCP is running a business, and, though we all love the game, we gotta be fair and square, and simply say it like it is: it is, ultimately, not that great.

    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships. That's the only reason for making money in the game realm. A bunch of newbies can't take Goons' sov with rookie frigates. Status is a dynamic experience, and there's plenty on motivation and on how the reward of stuff is much less motivating than the reward of learning and initiative and fantasy and socialization and status and competence.

    If SP prevents these, then how can the game be expected to increase -- the PCU.. the sub count.. the motivation to undock? It seems like expectations are a great topic, and what happens if all of the fantasy is completely ruined by a browser-game timer? It seems irrelevant if SP is anything more if it messes up so much.

    "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
    #109 - 2015-09-30 10:16:24 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships.

    That's a flawed logic, in particular in EVE where big ships equal more work, more tedium, more risk, more commitment for less gains and less fun. In EVE, all ships have their roles and you can have fun and purpose in almost all of them. Even BS are in no way something especially new players should be encouraged to fly anytime soon after they started playing (at least not in PVP). They need to be taught that BIG does not equal good in EVE.

    I think this is another thing that CCP needs in include in the NPE. They need to tell that people ought not to expect to fly big ships all the time and that people ought not to expect that big ships are an I Win or I Have Fun Time tool in the game.

    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
    #110 - 2015-09-30 10:30:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships.

    That's a flawed logic, in particular in EVE where big ships equal more work, more tedium, more risk, more commitment for less gains and less fun. In EVE, all ships have their roles and you can have fun and purpose in almost all of them. Even BS are in no way something especially new players should be encouraged to fly anytime soon after they started playing (at least not in PVP). They need to be taught that BIG does not equal good in EVE.

    I think this is another thing that CCP needs in include in the NPE. They need to tell that people ought not to expect to fly big ships all the time and that people ought not to expect that big ships are an I Win or I Have Fun Time tool in the game.


    Flawed logic in what manner? More ships, in other games, are more of all that as well. EVE has the benefit of socialization, so it technically has an added factor of motivation over games like X or other offline experiences.

    How are the larger ships nothing special? They can take on multiple targets, especially over flying frigates. They also have MJDs, which improve small-fleet feasibility.

    "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.

    Samillian
    Angry Mustellid
    #111 - 2015-09-30 10:35:12 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships.


    It maybe the whole of your space game (and if it is you are missing out on so much) but certainly for myself and many I fly with ships are a means to an end not an end in themselves.

    As to SP effecting sub trends I have yet to be shown any convincing or concrete proof of this. What "evidence" has been produced appears mainly to be anecdotal or conjecture based on poor secondary source materials heavily spun to further agendas.

    NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #112 - 2015-09-30 10:45:58 UTC
    Samillian wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships.


    It maybe the whole of your space game (and if it is you are missing out on so much) but certainly for myself and many I fly with ships are a means to an end not an end in themselves.

    As to SP effecting sub trends I have yet to be shown any convincing or concrete proof of this. What "evidence" has been produced appears mainly to be anecdotal or conjecture based on poor secondary source materials heavily spun to further agendas.


    Here's requoting that with how it seems to read:

    Quote:
    Getting bigger ships for better effectiveness may be the whole of your space game, but certainly for myself and many I fly with, ships are a means to an end (like better effectiveness).

    I realize I just quoted that there's a lack of information about how SP effects sub trends, but I have yet to be shown any convincing information as well.

    How about how logical it is that being ineffective with a ship is uninteresting an non-motivating?

    "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
    #113 - 2015-09-30 11:07:04 UTC
    Bigger does not mean better effectiveness. That's one flawed logic. Another is that the whole of the game is to get into bigger ships.
    As an example: A Bhaalgorn can web nearly as well as a Rapier, but it cannot keep up with an MWD cruiser gang and it warps slower than a cruiser gang. (Bigger here in terms of ship size itself, and it's not better or more effective.)
    A Bhaalgorn neutralizes more, but it cannot neut as far as a Geddon can do (Bigger here just in the sense that a Bhaal is a Pirate BS where the Armageddon is just a normal BS. What is more effective and better depends a lot on the circumstances here, but a Bhaal cannot beat a Geddon when neut range is required.)

    A frigate can also take on multiple targets. Likewise, while a BC can likely tank multiple frigates better for a while, it is also just as easily overwhelmed by them while it has no means of keeping up with, catching them or keeping them in place, or kill them at all.

    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
    #114 - 2015-09-30 11:26:03 UTC
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Bigger does not mean better effectiveness. That's one flawed logic. Another is that the whole of the game is to get into bigger ships.

    All that the listed examples suggest is that some ships are more effective at certain playstyles and fleet comps than others. Overall though, the trend is that larger ships are more expensive, and that's because they're more effective. More effective is more HP and DPS, isn't it? Then there's also the fantasy of flying something ginormous.

    It's obvious, though, that more SP is more effectiveness; and that's plenty of an example.

    "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.

    Samillian
    Angry Mustellid
    #115 - 2015-09-30 11:40:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
    Dror, solid evidence would work a lot better than this type of cheap distortion and logic chopping,

    Original

    Samillian wrote:
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships.


    It maybe the whole of your space game (and if it is you are missing out on so much) but certainly for myself and many I fly with ships are a means to an end not an end in themselves.

    As to SP effecting sub trends I have yet to be shown any convincing or concrete proof of this. What "evidence" has been produced appears mainly to be anecdotal or conjecture based on poor secondary source materials heavily spun to further agendas.


    Spun

    Dror wrote:
    Quote:
    Getting bigger ships for better effectiveness may be the whole of your space game, but certainly for myself and many I fly with, ships are a means to an end (like better effectiveness).

    I realize I just quoted that there's a lack of information about how SP effects sub trends, but I have yet to be shown any convincing information as well.

    How about how logical it is that being ineffective with a ship is uninteresting an non-motivating?


    This proves to me once and for all that you not only have no evidence to present but that you have probably never really played this game in any meaningful way.

    NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

    Dror
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #116 - 2015-09-30 12:09:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Dror
    Implying that I don't have any evidence, if it obviously hasn't been provided by the company, is a huge fallacy. It's nothing logical setting up parameters for winning an argument that both ignores what's provided and tries to discredit the value of information on its low availability. That information is helpful even if it's unannounced.

    As stated, though, there's an abundance of information on motivation; and SP neither positively reinforces undocking, nor does it provide the freedom of a sandbox fantasy.

    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though. The whole of every space game is getting bigger ships. That's the only reason for making money in the game realm. A bunch of newbies can't take Goons' sov with rookie frigates. Status is a dynamic experience, and there's plenty on motivation and on how the reward of stuff is much less motivating than the reward of learning and initiative and fantasy and socialization and status and competence.

    Does it seem like SP prevents learning and competence and initiative and fantasy and socialization and status? That'd seem a pretty mean draw for some gating.

    "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
    #117 - 2015-09-30 12:26:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
    Dror wrote:
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    Bigger does not mean better effectiveness. That's one flawed logic. Another is that the whole of the game is to get into bigger ships.

    All that the listed examples suggest is that some ships are more effective at certain playstyles and fleet comps than others. Overall though, the trend is that larger ships are more expensive, and that's because they're more effective. More effective is more HP and DPS, isn't it? Then there's also the fantasy of flying something ginormous.

    It's obvious, though, that more SP is more effectiveness; and that's plenty of an example.

    If more HP cannot catch or keep up with a target, neither more DPS nor fancy roles and bonuses help. They are more effective against some aspects, but less effective against many others. More HP also do not necessarily mean better suited for engagements (or more effective in one). A carrier has more HP than a BLOPS, but several blops can overwhelm a carrier easily. And as killboards show time and again, even fleets of frigates and cruisers can overwhelm capital ships with ease. A Titan has more HP than carriers and with the DD a lot more firepower than a carrier, but you can fit your carrier in a way that it can withstand the DD and together with other carriers can overwhelm the titan.
    Same goes for more expensive, in particular in EVE, where we fortunately have the concept of diminishing returns. A meta 4 module (one of the properly balanced ones, not jammers or damps or some such. Let's just say guns) is vastly better than a Meta 0 module; T2 or faction on the other hand offer an a lot smaller advantage over Meta 4 guns and T2 in particular adds more disadvantages to them in form of worse fitting requirements. and both are a lot more expensive than Meta 4. Officer guns are also a little bit more effective, powerful than T2 or faction, but their price tag is enormous.

    More SP are only more effective to a certain degree. You can only achieve 5 skill levels. SP-wise, characters with frigate V and all the necessary tank and support skills V are all equally effective regardless of age. Every character can catch up to even the oldest characters one skill at a time. Sure, older characters can use more things while younger characters are more limited in terms of tool variety, but this solves itself over time.

    No one is taking away the dream from anyone that you can fly a big ship. You can do whatever you want over time. What I want to violently rip out of ever single one of these new and old players alike is their expectation that it should happen fast.

    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
    #118 - 2015-09-30 12:59:09 UTC
    Rivr Luzade wrote:
    A meta 4 module (one of the properly balanced ones, not jammers or damps or some such. Let's just say guns) is vastly better than a Meta 0 module

    .. And Meta 4 modules are both more expensive and more effective than Meta 0.

    T2 or faction on the other hand offer an a lot smaller advantage over Meta 4 guns and T2 in particular adds more disadvantages to them in form of worse fitting requirements

    T2 guns provide an incredible advantage over T1 with ammo selection and its projection. T2 damage mods, though, have the advantage of reduced fitting requirements.

    More SP are only more effective to a certain degree... but this solves itself over time.

    If, by "solving itself", this includes a huge amount of subscription money, then sure. Yet If more subs is the idea, devaluing that subscription and that experience and that fantasy and that effectiveness and that status is an awful option.


    "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.

    Aerasia
    Republic University
    Minmatar Republic
    #119 - 2015-09-30 14:09:25 UTC
    Dror wrote:
    There's a very obvious lack of information on how SP actually effects sub trends, though.
    True, but we can infer that SP isn't the primary driver for cancelled subs. Like any MMO, EVE is going to perform exit interviews on people dropping their sub (some in fact making that interview a mandatory pre-req for cancellation).

    Assume for a moment you get to be a fly on the wall during the quarterly dept. head meeting. The subscription trend numbers are presented and you're given three facts:
    X% of subs cancelling said skill progression was their primary reason.
    $Y is the expected value of a single subbed player.
    Z is the number of cancelled subs during the last 90 days.

    Z * X% * $Y = Expected losses from your SP system. We know that value is non-zero because CCP occasionally works to improve it (Learning skill removal, new NPEs, theoretical removal of learning implants). But we also know it isn't a dominant financial factor because SP is still here.

    So I argue for SP's removal purely because it's a very badly designed way to do progression, as chances are good that even if they scrapped the whole thing tomorrow there wouldn't be a dramatic increase in concurrent logins. I think it would be a net benefit. You only need to read through some newbie corp. mentor comments on how prevalent "I have to wait how long to fly with the corp. fleet?" comments are to see there's an upside. But I think it's far more likely that other factors are being communicated as more important to newly cancelled subs, rather than CCP going hardline against the feedback of formerly paying players.
    Rivr Luzade
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #120 - 2015-09-30 14:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
    If I may take the Mega Pulse laser as an example: Meta 0 costs in Amarr 1.25M, Meta 4 costs 735k and T2 3.6M. The damage bonus itself in T2 MPL and M4 MPL is the same, T2 have more DPS due to a up to 10% more ROF. Ammo selection is debatable. At long range, you have scorch, granted, but most of the time you use Multifrequency in either case.
    T2 Heat Sinks indeed have a lower fitting requirement than Meta 4; however, 1 MPL II already requires 13 more CPU than the Meta 4 version, with equals 2 T2 Heat Sinks. In fact, damage multiplication modules seem to be the exception from the rule in this regard, which reduces their validity for the argument. But I do not mind.

    You only devalue all that by imposing impossible expectations onto yourself. Tone down your expectations and you will not only have a much better and more enjoyable game play experience, you also learn the values of patience in real life. If you cannot do that, there's always the possibility to buy a character and skip the training. However, I believe that teaching people patience is something that's direly needed in our current state of the society. I do not have a problem with EVE being on the forefront of it. More subscriptions should also not be the most important determining factor in order to get more people in the game. The determining factor should be to excite people for the game. And while you spin the SP side of the game as a disadvantage that slows down progress and disallows activities and content, I counter that the current SP system allows you to progress regardless whether you can actively play or not and that you get access to every single activity over time, starting from the small ones moving on to big ones eventually.

    What "Get more subs no matter how" does is something like these Content Packs. You pay a subscription and then you pay even more money to get a starter pack. If this the way for EVE to get more subs, it might as well just die. Not only is the content of these packs ridiculous (worth way less than 5 Euro), that you need to pay extra money in the first place to get a starter kit for something is heinous.

    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.