EVE Information Portal

Here is a post that already discusses this:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6123787#post6123787

To more directly answer your question, the fair field is the opportunity to win, even if that requires planning, logistics, and plausibly avoidance until the fleet comps seem worth engaging. What the problem includes is limited strategy and fleet comp options because of SP, limited ship performance, and even the depth of industrialization provided. These are all about effectiveness.

OK, I decided to take the time to read this study. Bearing in mind this is one study that is being QFT'd to support an argument. ! study does not make truth.

First point of concern at page 8: Therefore, the goal of this study is to identify effective strate
-
gies for promoting game player loyalty to MMORPGs by testing a proposed
model using data from a survey of 173 players who were members of a large
MMORPG community.

173 players? That few? From just one game? How is this supposed to representative of the whole MMO market? How is this supposed to representative of anything other than a very small group from a specific game model?

I'll continue reading but that doesn't fill me with confidence for s start

Page 9: "The research literature suggests that the players view
the avatar as an idealized version of their own personality and that users are
less satisfied with their avatar when there are major discrepancies between
online and real personalities"

Oh god I hope this isn't true of players in EvE given the cut-throat nature here. I find it more likely that players perform actions in EvE they would never even possibly consider in RL simply because they can and that makesit fun. This in itself would put the kind of player attracted to EvE outside of the realms of this study.

"The primary goal of this study is to identify factors that motivated
game players to commit to an MMORPG. To achieve this goal, this research
focused on key cognitive and social psychological variables influencing the
development of e-loyalty toward MMORPGs."

I have a problem here due to the first point above, this is a limited player group from one game only

"Control of the character is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for game success. Players must
also possess skill, strategy, and knowledge. Because primary control is related
to direct manipulation of the game character[66], MMORPG players attempt to manipulate their characters skillfully. As a result, the higher the character’s level, the greater the control the player has over the character
["

This actually backs up EvE's use of SP's.

Page 14: "Hypothesis 1a:
The player’s perceived control over his or her own character
(avatar) positively influences his or her psychological ownership of the character (avatar) in the MMorPG.
Hypothesis 1b:
The player’s psychological ownership of his or her own character (avatar) positively influences e‑loyalty toward the MMorPG."

Pretty much support the use of SP to grow a character and therefore a players investment in it and loyalty to the game.

Page 16:

Here the study shows that social identity as part of a guid (WoW study giveaway?) is key to growing game loyalty. I belive this to be true in terms of corps, SP is not the key or any kind of stopper on player retention. Corp interaction or lack of it is and this needs to be enhanced greatly.

Page 18: "Hypothesis 2a:
The player’s perceived interaction satisfaction with other guild members through the different features provided by the MMorPG
positively influences the development of social identity in the guild.

Hypothesis 2b:
The player’s social identity in the guild positively influences e‑loyalty toward the MMorPG"

I agree to an extent *but* EvE also attracts a lot of very individually minded players. Both need to be catered for.

Page 20: "all had at least two months’ playing experience and provided information regarding the specific game they most preferred. Participants ranged in age from 16 to 42 years; the average age was 23.64 (SD=5.06)."

I beliebeve the average age of EvE players is higher than this, potentially showing that EvE players fall into a different demographic. Very important when coming up with hypothesis on what's best for the game. I'd also have liked to see the actual time spent playing the game for those in the study, not just 'At least 2 months'. If people leave EvE after 6 months in 90% of cases then you would need to ask those who stay longer why they did so. Very different to this study.

Page 25: "With regard to different levels of player skill, those who are less successful
at playing the game might nevertheless become loyal players if they perceive
that they have some degree of control due to their investment of time and effort.
This is the genesis of interpretive or secondary control, which is facilitated
when the game provides interesting and unique content."

SP growth actually reinforces this ,a less skillful player can still catch up in character skill terms in any given activity. You character becomes more valuable to you.

A common statement in the study "In most MMORPGs..."...as we all know EvE is not most RPG's and attracts players who do not want to play most RPG's. That would place this study outside of Eve's game design. Studies would need to cover the attraction a loyalty generation in/of niche products to be directly relevant.

Page 26: "A mechanism that facilitates guild membership is needed because many new players are reluctant to join guilds."

NPE really needs to help players find corps somehow.

Page 27: "This study exhibits several limitations, and key questions remain unanswered."

This in itself invalidates any attempt to QFT this study, reading the whole section here just makes me question entirely how this can be applied to EvE as a reason to remove SP.

This conclusion section actually supports the validity of SP as a non-grind based method of character progression to create player investment in their character. The second part also highlights the need to improve the NPE experience in relation to introduction to (and investment in) player corps.

that's because i have to continuously repeat myself as it would seem some people find reading hard.

You continuously spam and make noise. I can agree with that. Yet you did not manage to provide counter arguments for all those "weak arguments" people provided. If you are trying to "win" discussion by simply spamming and repeating bs, stating lies as a fact. Anyone who read the whole thread or asked you any question is aware of it. And no matter how many tries you lie and say you did provided counter arguments I will be here to challenge that bs again ^^.

which of my posts were lies. feel free to link one, i mean you seem to have no shortage of them apparently.

i mean, i don't mind you disagreeing with me - that's fine. however to call me a liar, that's just rude.

Emboldened replies:

I really can't accept 173 players as a representative group of even a small game group. The study relies on the answers from this group and is very heavily limited by the points that the study itself accepts just before the conclusion. There is no indication that the study group even fall into the same demographic of players who are attracted to EvE, let alone those that stay and play the game for an extended time.


The games studied all have character progression mechanism that allow the players to create their character as they wish over time. That in no way invalidates SP and for me does not back up your view at all. In fact in my view the study implies the exact opposite, that a mechanism to give players control over their character is intrinsically necessary for the creation of investment in that character and therefore the game.



Same as above, 173 players (implied from the same game but no way to be sure) is absolutely not enough to be a representative group. The limitation of this is explicitly acknowledged at the end of the study.



You read this very differently to me then, your proposal would remove any control a player has over their character growth (as there simply wouldn't be any). You are also treating EvE like most other MMORPG's and we all know it isn't. It is absolutely clear to me that the control comes from driving your character in whatever direction you choose and gaining the skills to access other areas of the game as you do so. EvE actually requires more planning and forethought than any other game I've played and this is part of what draws those players to EvE that actually stay. This is backed up by CCP's own studies that show that those players who interact with many career styles over time stay in the game longer.

I'll also re-iterate that the studies own acknowledgement of it's severe limitations completely invalidates any use of it as proof of any argument.

Ed: the [/dror] was entirely a mistype...

Let's get this into action CCP! Been waiting for years for this.

I think a lot of people with concerns have not even read the devblog.

At 50-70M sp you get one tenth of the skill points. The suggested values in the blog are 50000 sp. Or by my math, less than a days worth *and* those skill points came from somewhere. Somewhere with more than 5M sp as well.

So lets run the numbers: Assume 50k sp is a days worth. I want to get say battleship 5 for a race. I currently have the 50-70M sp. So each packet only gets me a days worth. Thus i would need over 30 packets. Now consider fighter to lvl 5!!

Now what will the cost be. Assume for a second they are free outside the SP that you need. So we would have some SP farmers. ie a few characters with 5M sp that just bundle the 2 packets a month (about) for sale. This is a plex worth. So even without making a dime its going to be 500M per skill packet. If i add the Aurm cost its is going to be much higher. And they are going to want a profit here. So we are talking 20-50B for that one skill!

So sure it is worth it if your a 5-20M sp pilot, but for the others, it really won't be.

Please go ahead and prove them not being lies. Just stating so is not good enough ^^

Also I have provided a link where you agree with my argument, ie proving your statement that there was no real argument lie again.