Player Features and Ideas Discussion

So what are you saying? People are leaving the game because they cant use a bastion module On day one?

There is lower level content for everything you've mentioned. T1 modules and ships. Low level industry and research. The market does not infact require sp to use and is quickly trainable at that. What you listed as content are actually various means to various ends. And New players are not denied those ends because there are other means of getting there.

There is nothing a carrier can do that 20 noobs cant do in lower sp ships. Nor is it impossible for new players to fly along side an existing carrier pilot to access the same content and achieve the same end.

SP adds more gameplay than it limits.

They add long-term orientation to the game. EVE is not one of these "Jump in, shoot around, forget it next day" games. There is no need for everything to be available or possible at day one. Limitation is the point of the skills in order to have something to aspire even weeks, months or years into the game. For a long time, there are new things to train, discover and, in the process of learning the skill(s), to learn about the activity.
Skills also allow for 5 different power-levels in ships and modules without having to have 5 different ships with the same role and same stats type.
Skills also help to discover the game by requiring you to look what you need, what else these required skills unlock or influence and what you can do with certain skill combinations.

Again, if you look for the activity mentioned in the first paragraph, EVE is not the necessarily the right game for you and your unsubbing, should you turn out to be obstinate about it, is no loss for the game.

For crying out loud, I recall one thread years ago where a guy created a new character and wanted to see if he could get to a billion ISK in a set time frame (surprisingly short time frame at that). Granted he wasn't "new" in the literal sense, but his character had did have the same SP any other starting character would have. Not having all the skills for a playing the market in Eve does reduce your profits, but not your ability to enter or play the market.

And yes, SP limits game play when looking at ship fittings etc. I contend that is there for a reason. That reason is game balance. Removing SP or giving all new characters a butt load of SP or even removing SP entirely will be unbalancing to the game. New players will not have any advantage over older players all they'll be able to do is get into the shinier ships sooner...which they probably wont be able to afford (thanks to ISK inflation) and now every ALT in NS is transformed into an effective combat pilot as well to help further cement NS players in their homes. I have 5 alts in my NS alliance one is my main, who is a combat pilot. Remove SP and they all become combat pilots because I, the player, know how to fly in NS fleets. I can station my alts or jump clones around various parts of our space and that of our allies and ships and nicely side step the issues that fatigue imposes.

Yet here you stand steadfastly ignoring these game balance issues stamping your foot demanding your toys now.

What I mentioned above. You should broaden your definition of "gameplay" a bit. Furthermore, it keeps children out of the game that would do nothing but annoy me and ruin my experience in the game. Not that there aren't already enough of them in the game, but without skill training to obtain things, get access to things and without the wait, there'd be more and worse.

Actually, a level playing field is what "balance" ordinarily is referencing. Beyond that, it's already possible for a fresh sub to PLEX through starter SP from the bazaar. So this must seem an awful feature, then? If not, then there's no point in the balance discussion except that it's probably a reason for some unsub trends.

It's already mentioned that reducing alts is plausible through an already-implemented feature. Yet with the multiboxing nerf (no broadcasting), limiting characters is unnecessary.


Ah, but the discussion is about content. None of that is so.


A player already can't do "everything" and can benefit from fleets. That's no feature of SP's. Then the point is that it *does* limit options and effectiveness? "Well that seems awful."

40% if players level up their raven and then leave. So what happens when you remove the levelling?

As far as I know, the dissuasion is about how to get more people into the game. Skillpoints and training is but one area where things could change. What you are trying to do is to push a minor problem to be the number one most important problem that keeps people from getting into the game.

In my opinion, this is not the case. This kind of skill training progression is somewhat a unique characteristic of the game. You progress whether you are logged in and play or logged out and do something else. Obviously, you have fewer opportunities to influence the speed of the progress, but you progress regardless.
On the other hand, many other serious games (I do not consider things like COD, BF or Angry Birds serious games) use some kind of progression mechanic to advance players and give them more things to do or to fiddle with. I'm currently heavily invested in Cities Skylines. There the time based progression is city population to unlock more buildings, more sectors to expand your city into and more things to influence stats in your city. Or Witcher 3, which I watch on YouTube at the moment. This game uses grinding mechanics (slaying monsters, completing quests, and the likes) to accumulate skill points to level up and get more talent points to advance skills and proficiencies.
None of the games have all the things of the game available to the players at the start of the game, neither all buildings and ares in Cities, or weapons and armor or areas in Witcher (this game is particularly nasty as it gives you things that you can first many levels later). In none of these and many other games, people have a problem with the progression part of the game. What neither of the games have, in contrast to EVE, is the offline progression that EVE offers and that advances you even when you can't play for weeks or even months.

I absolutely do not see why this is a problem in EVE.

Agreed, I played WoT and War Thunder, both have a time based leveling system--i.e. the more time you play the faster you level. Not bad if you have lots of time, not good if you don't. Eve you "level" at a fairly steady rate whether you log in. If you have lots of time, not so great in that you cannot speed up that process, but if you don't have lots of time its more appealing. This choices by game developers involve trade offs and will impact other aspects of the game as well.

As for issues facing new players I agree that while SP might be an issue it is not the fundamental issue. The number of ships and overall SP have increased over time so boosting starting SP is probably quite reasonable. But that will do nothing to address the overall steep learning curve inherent in the game.

Your position is: SP is limiting new players to such an extent that they are quitting very early on.

The counter position is: SP maybe a factor for new players, but the overall complexity of the game is far more dominant.

Making the game easier to understand for new players would probably go more towards retaining new players than SP. And not just things like the overview, explaining the effects of signature radius, transversal, and the capacitor to new players would likely help quite a bit.

Except, it's already stated that increasing the probability of grouping up (as fresh characters) is great. If there's no reason for reliance on veteran characters, that's a whole niche of socialization that comes.

So the reply on the idea of SP limiting subs is that the depth of the game is limiting subs? That makes no sense with how mastery and skillfulness are some of the most prevalent ideas; but how can mastery and skillfulness thrive with limitations on ships, modules, and every other mechanic? It's like going to a buffet and finding that it requires one dish per plate per table. The place might seem interesting, but there are other methods of getting some of what those dishes are.


How is limiting gameplay not limiting content? Every character that finds a neat idea for a ship or fitting can find the initiative to fly it. What's the cost of learning something, willfulness? What if that willfulness is met with gating? "Why play if the options don't seem interesting?"

Playing the game vicariously through others is still not gameplay, nor "content".


How would that be realized without playing it?