These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Unbiased Criticisms for the Game
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#301 - 2015-10-26 08:03:12 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
No, social aspects are effected by the people engaging socially. SP doesn't dictate this.

Politics is just the intertwining of corp potential. That comes directly from average ships flown, industrialization, and the game's further capacity to be an objectively great video game.

Paul Pohl wrote:
Dror wrote:
Newbies flying capitals is the best possibility for larger-scale engagements.


this is just nonsense

if you want newbies - whoever they are - to be involved in large scales engagements then everyone would be restricted to flying frigates (with very restricted gear) and there would be no campaign development (i.e SP)

Literally, what?

Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP. That's "being non-competitive", and it's an awful status quo for a video game and design philosophy. As written in the research document, the ability to win because of fair opportunity is key.

Scipio Artelius wrote:
Not at all.

There are a lot of things in the game that come down solely to your skills as a person and particularly your organisational, interpersonal, cognitive and other skills.

Being a Logistics Director has almost nothing to do with skillpoints and much more the ability to organise, schedule and manage other people and information.

Being a Diplomat has much more to do with cognitive and interpersonal skills than it does with any skillbook.

Being a good educator in the game has much more to do with organisational and communication skills than what skillpoints your character has.

There are many more examples where roles and functions within the game depend more on the life skills of the player than they do on the skillpoints of the character.

Skillpoints provide flexibility for the character at the immediate (tactical) gameplay level. The real game is played at the meta level (operational and strategic), where the most successful players have the RL skills to achieve their goals, no matter which character they are using at the time.

Gameplay.

1/?

"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.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2015-10-26 08:21:44 UTC
Cidanel Afuran wrote:
Dror wrote:
Can you provide a worst case scenario that doesn't have to do with rep or sec status?


I've already told you, oh sweet Dror of mine.

Vets who've played for years will quit, because we don't want to be carebears in space like yourself. EVE would do a 180 degree flip from being what it is to a themepark WoW in space game, causing the subscribers who have make it one of the highest rated MMOs in existence for over a decade into just another run of the mill game. It would ruin what makes EVE, EVE.

For the sixth time in this thread, can you respond to this champ?

Actions have consequences. We like that. I can't blindly re-roll a new character and have the same skills. My reputation is tied to my name, and I have to live with my actions. We like that also. If you remove time-based SPs, reputation is suddenly meaningless, as anyone can re-roll a new character at any time. The entire social-political landscape of EVE disappears overnight.

Look forward to how you dodge this point for the sixth time, Dror-y boy.

Rep and sec status are 90% of the game. Asking to ignore rep or sec status in EVE the same as asking someone to ignore the fact they have to shoot guns in counterstrike....Have you even played EVE, Mr. Dror McTrollingSon?

Rep and sec status could be account-based (the same answer as about the original question..

Mind relaying how you imagine EVE to be more like a themepark game if subs can actually play the sandbox how they would.. without an arbitrary gate?

Chopper Rollins wrote:
Realistic paintings are problem solving exercises, which have been performed better by machines for over a century.

Prove it.

Even if so, that would suggest nothing about the skillfulness required to actually paint.

--

Here are some posts from the community:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6086897#post6086897

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6112711#post6112711 --
Soltys wrote:
You have balls to finally turn this antique pseudo-progression mechanics borrowed from antique mmos over a decade ago. It serves no purpose in this game, besides creating artificial wall. It never did anything more than that.

1) SP doesn't mean commitment
2) SP doesn't measure any actual skill in this game
3) SP is an artificial wall
4) SP pool is bloated beyond any sensible limits


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6114419#post6114419

"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.
Aoife Fraoch
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#303 - 2015-10-26 08:51:52 UTC
Dror wrote:

Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP. That's "being non-competitive", and it's an awful status quo for a video game and design philosophy. As written in the research document, the ability to win because of fair opportunity is key.


Frankly given that you are presenting anecdotes are solid data and out-of-context articles as relevant, it is as solid an arguement as you deserve. Especially as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what EVE is. At a high level, EVE is a game of grand strategy.

As for Brave Newbies I could just as easily pick another example. Like Goons. The difference between those two had nothing to do with mechanics. The SP compared to their enemies was not relevant, what mattered were soft skills. Brave failed because of their internal issues, where as Goons succeeded because they were able to organise and motivate their members.

But ultimately the problem here is that you do not understand exactly what kind of game EVE is. You think it should be some unholy blend of a MOAB and some rapidly dying WOW clone. It isn't and it shouldn't be, because nothing would kill EVE faster than trying to be more like everything else, because that market is saturated. If that is what you want, perhaps you should play one of those.

Game design does matter here to a point, but you are completely ignorant of how much more important community is.

Hell, lets look at another example. CODE. Love them or loath them, SP has nothing to do with their ability to have an impact on the game. Their power and ability to effect the game is more about their ability to organise and have a polarising message that spreads.

One more thing, did you even read that paper? Because it completely supports what I just wrote, because EVE is about groups:

Quote:

Conclusion

Drawing upon psychological ownership theory and social identity theory, we developed and tested a model of MMORPGs that integrates two different loyalty strategies—an ownership-enhancing strategy and a socializationenhancing strategy.

Study findings revealed that game developers who seek to maintain and increase customer retention and commitment should design games that adopt both strategies by encouraging character ownership and facilitating the development of strong social ties with other game players.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#304 - 2015-10-26 08:57:47 UTC
Case in point, he is also ignorant of game design as well.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#305 - 2015-10-26 09:32:20 UTC
Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Dror wrote:

Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP. That's "being non-competitive", and it's an awful status quo for a video game and design philosophy. As written in the research document, the ability to win because of fair opportunity is key.


Frankly given that you are presenting anecdotes are solid data and out-of-context articles as relevant, it is as solid an arguement as you deserve. Especially as you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what EVE is. At a high level, EVE is a game of grand strategy.

As for Brave Newbies I could just as easily pick another example. Like Goons. The difference between those two had nothing to do with mechanics. The SP compared to their enemies was not relevant, what mattered were soft skills. Brave failed because of their internal issues, where as Goons succeeded because they were able to organise and motivate their members.

But ultimately the problem here is that you do not understand exactly what kind of game EVE is. You think it should be some unholy blend of a MOAB and some rapidly dying WOW clone. It isn't and it shouldn't be, because nothing would kill EVE faster than trying to be more like everything else, because that market is saturated. If that is what you want, perhaps you should play one of those.

Game design does matter here to a point, but you are completely ignorant of how much more important community is.

Hell, lets look at another example. CODE. Love them or loath them, SP has nothing to do with their ability to have an impact on the game. Their power and ability to effect the game is more about their ability to organise and have a polarising message that spreads.

One more thing, did you even read that paper? Because it completely supports what I just wrote, because EVE is about groups:

Quote:

Conclusion

Drawing upon psychological ownership theory and social identity theory, we developed and tested a model of MMORPGs that integrates two different loyalty strategies—an ownership-enhancing strategy and a socializationenhancing strategy.

Study findings revealed that game developers who seek to maintain and increase customer retention and commitment should design games that adopt both strategies by encouraging character ownership and facilitating the development of strong social ties with other game players.

How is the study irrelevant?

From the study,
Quote:
Social identity is defined as the knowledge of belonging to a social group, as well as the emotional and value significance of his or her group membership."

Value is very correlative with SP, and lower value is lower social identity (game loyalty).

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#306 - 2015-10-26 10:00:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Thierry Orlenard
Dror wrote:


Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP.


Brave didn't get evicted because of the SP system. They got evicted because the leadership didn't know what the heck it was doing.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2015-10-26 10:04:29 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:


Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP.


Brave didn't get evicted because of the SP system. They got evicted because the leadership didn't know what the heck it was doing.

Leadership could've stopped them from being forced to move supposedly, but they were still getting farmed on the undock.

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2015-10-26 10:08:51 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:


Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP.


Brave didn't get evicted because of the SP system. They got evicted because the leadership didn't know what the heck it was doing.

Leadership could've stopped them from being forced to move supposedly, but they were still getting farmed on the undock.


There's no supposedly about it, as noted by the person above me, that whole debacle happened because of a lack of "soft", or as shall I say "real life" skills.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#309 - 2015-10-26 10:13:46 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:


Aoife Fraoch wrote:
Brave Newbies et al.

Your argument is invalid.

How so? Brave got farmed in Catch and evicted from there without any real strategy.. This is exactly what happens to those lesser than Brave also, because there's no A to B for outplaying getting completely outclassed because of SP.


Brave didn't get evicted because of the SP system. They got evicted because the leadership didn't know what the heck it was doing.

Leadership could've stopped them from being forced to move supposedly, but they were still getting farmed on the undock.


There's no supposedly about it, as noted by the person above me, that whole debacle happened because of a lack of "soft", or as shall I say "real life" skills.

That's quite the implication for something that's all being discussed pretty anecdotally.

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#310 - 2015-10-26 10:20:28 UTC
Dror wrote:
That's quite the implication for something that's all being discussed pretty anecdotally.



...and your implication that if the SP system wasn't in place -- that if they'd all had access to caps -- that isn't? Get real. You're the one that brought it up.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#311 - 2015-10-26 10:22:44 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
That's quite the implication for something that's all being discussed pretty anecdotally.



...and your implication that if the SP system wasn't in place -- that if they'd all had access to caps -- that isn't? Get real. You're the one that brought it up.


Are you saying that if they could match engagement tools, that they'd be unsuccessful? At least they'd have a chance.

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2015-10-26 10:36:04 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
That's quite the implication for something that's all being discussed pretty anecdotally.



...and your implication that if the SP system wasn't in place -- that if they'd all had access to caps -- that isn't? Get real. You're the one that brought it up.


Are you saying that if they could match engagement tools, that they'd be unsuccessful? At least they'd have a chance.


There are a ton of examples in this game of alleged matched engagement tools that have been woefully unsuccessful. A carrier piloted by an inexperienced player can be in a lot of trouble against even a small gang of experienced players in ships that a person like yourself would call "lesser".

So yes, I'm saying that a group of very inexperienced sov-holding newbies in carriers, dreads, supercarriers etc would be an entertaining light show of explosions for the game for everyone but the newbies involved.

(How are these newbies going to pay for these ships, anyway? Most newbies have to scrape for their first cruiser)
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2015-10-26 10:43:04 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
That's quite the implication for something that's all being discussed pretty anecdotally.



...and your implication that if the SP system wasn't in place -- that if they'd all had access to caps -- that isn't? Get real. You're the one that brought it up.


Are you saying that if they could match engagement tools, that they'd be unsuccessful? At least they'd have a chance.


There are a ton of examples in this game of alleged matched engagement tools that have been woefully unsuccessful. A carrier piloted by an inexperienced player can be in a lot of trouble against even a small gang of experienced players in ships that a person like yourself would call "lesser".

So yes, I'm saying that a group of very inexperienced sov-holding newbies in carriers, dreads, supercarriers etc would be an entertaining light show of explosions for the game for everyone but the newbies involved.

(How are these newbies going to pay for these ships, anyway? Most newbies have to scrape for their first cruiser)


Yet, they took the engagement because they could win. So, now you're saying that reduced engagement tools reduces content?

"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.
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#314 - 2015-10-26 11:02:44 UTC
Dror wrote:
1/?

Somehow the confusion shown by the question mark doesn't surprise me at this point.

It fits well with this whole thread.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#315 - 2015-10-26 11:07:13 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Dror wrote:
1/?

Somehow the confusion shown by the question mark doesn't surprise me at this point.

It fits well with this whole thread.

It's less than obvious how reminiscing on punctuation, nor on showing a multi-post is relevant.

Feel free to post something constructive.

"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.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#316 - 2015-10-26 11:12:20 UTC
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:


There are a ton of examples in this game of alleged matched engagement tools that have been woefully unsuccessful. A carrier piloted by an inexperienced player can be in a lot of trouble against even a small gang of experienced players in ships that a person like yourself would call "lesser".

So yes, I'm saying that a group of very inexperienced sov-holding newbies in carriers, dreads, supercarriers etc would be an entertaining light show of explosions for the game for everyone but the newbies involved.

(How are these newbies going to pay for these ships, anyway? Most newbies have to scrape for their first cruiser)


Yet, they took the engagement because they could win.


*laughs*
Yes, Bobby, in PvP, people take engagements that they think they can win. Even in World of Warcraft. (Especially in World of Warcraft. If you don't think that's the truth, then try leveling up from scratch on a PvP server. No cheating by boosting to 90 or staying in a city and dungeon-leveling. You'll need to get your butt out there and level by questing.)

Dror wrote:
So, now you're saying that reduced engagement tools reduces content?


What reduced engagement tools? In this game, you find your niche, stay with it until you can move on to other things. Note I said "other" things not necessarily "better" things. You keep touting sov and cap ownership as the be-all and end-all of this game. Why?
Scipio Artelius
Weaponised Vegemite
Flying Dangerous
#317 - 2015-10-26 11:17:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Scipio Artelius
Dror wrote:
Feel free to post something constructive.

You first.

By this point, there is no reason to add anymore constructive posts. They seem to be ignored, misunderstood or disregarded on the basis of a lack of understanding about what Eve is. So, it's just a pointless waste of energy to try.
Dror
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#318 - 2015-10-26 11:20:10 UTC
Thierry Orlenard wrote:
Dror wrote:
Thierry Orlenard wrote:


There are a ton of examples in this game of alleged matched engagement tools that have been woefully unsuccessful. A carrier piloted by an inexperienced player can be in a lot of trouble against even a small gang of experienced players in ships that a person like yourself would call "lesser".

So yes, I'm saying that a group of very inexperienced sov-holding newbies in carriers, dreads, supercarriers etc would be an entertaining light show of explosions for the game for everyone but the newbies involved.

(How are these newbies going to pay for these ships, anyway? Most newbies have to scrape for their first cruiser)


Yet, they took the engagement because they could win.


*laughs*
Yes, Bobby, in PvP, people take engagements that they think they can win. Even in World of Warcraft. (Especially in World of Warcraft. If you don't think that's the truth, then try leveling up from scratch on a PvP server. No cheating by boosting to 90 or staying in a city and dungeon-leveling. You'll need to get your butt out there and level by questing.)

Dror wrote:
So, now you're saying that reduced engagement tools reduces content?


What reduced engagement tools? In this game, you find your niche, stay with it until you can move on to other things. Note I said "other" things not necessarily "better" things. You keep touting sov and cap ownership as the be-all and end-all of this game. Why?

That's a deflection.

If a corp is being farmed on an undock, is it largely because they're out-classed in tools, fleet sizes being equal? Is it plausible that large amounts of engagements are denied just because their meta is vastly out-comped?

"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.
Odie McCracken
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#319 - 2015-10-26 11:22:33 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Dror wrote:
Feel free to post something constructive.

You first.

By this point, there is no reason to add anymore constructive posts. They seem to be ignored, misunderstood or disregarded on the basis of a lack of understanding about what Eve is. So, it's just a pointless waste of energy to try.



Pretty much this. I gave up because the OP doesn't actually put forth anything that can be defended. All he does is post nonsense that seems more and more troll bait, which is probably his goal in the first place. Well done sir.

At this point the most constructive response would be "Purple monkey dishwasher". That makes about as much sense as what the OP is posting.
Thierry Orlenard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#320 - 2015-10-26 11:23:45 UTC
Dror wrote:
That's a deflection.


Oh, you little scamp, you. I take this round.