EVE General Discussion

By what measure or standard is >20% insignificant?

If you got a >20% raise at your job, would you say you've received a "slight", "negligible" pay increase?

How I see it:
For me 20% raise at my job would be significant as it would affect my RL situation and I would alter my behaviour to get it. 20% more SP in a game is not significant enough for me personally to alter the way I play the game (Which is what we are discussing here, are 20% enough to force you to play the game in a way you do not enjoy?). I could get more % SP boost just by using higher level implants and remapping.

There is a reason why you in science define rules for how to asses statistical significance, as people are subjective and what is significant for one is not for another.

You are free to disagree, just wanted to explain how I see it.

Maybe you could have like 10 of them different dailies, but after completion of one, the rest would vanish until the reset. But, with new event system, why not just remove the dailies and replace it with this event system slightly modified to work even outside the events to give some incentives just on log in. In form of news feed and those SCOPE agents.

It's diminishing relative to your total SP count. It's more useful to a new player training levels 1-3 than an experienced player training in 4-5's. 10K SP will buy off a lot of level 1's right away and some level 2's. It will knock the snot out of level 3's. Level 4's is a bonus but not earth shattering and level 5's it's hardly a tick on the clock. It also matters what the multiplier of the skill is too.

The deprecation (diminishing return) is already built into the skill system is what I was trying to say. It is relative to total SP/Training on the toon.

The closest I've ever played to this was an old tabletop RPG called "Call of Cthulhu". In that model, when you performed a skill successfully you put a tick mark next to the skill (it was a D20 based system, so think in 5% chunks and you get the idea). Then after the 'adventure' was over, you rolled again against every skill you had a check mark on. *IF* you failed that roll, you got to add a point to the skill, if you 'succeeded' again, you got nothing and moved on.

This replicated the idea that learning something at first was hard, so failing a new skill was common, but when you did experience success, odds are you would succeed the 'check' roll and get a point.

It would also slow down advancement on skills you already knew well. Sure, you'd succeed on the skill easily, earning the check mark, but then 'failing' the skill became very hard and rare.

You also got 1-3 points at the end of an adventure depending on it's difficulty and you could put those wherever you liked in the skill tree or against stats to raise those as well.

I don't recall if it was game rules or a house rule but we also had GM's (Keeper in the case of CoC) giving out a 'reward' skill point here and there if you really added to the game or the 'moment'.

Also, you need to understand that a well aged CoC character was pretty unusual as they tended to die a lot, HP Lovecraft's universe isn't overly nice to people!

Modeling this in EVE would be very difficult and would create far more acrimony to players used to an MMO style of XP advancement. I think CCP is on the right track, it may need tweaking but the general direction seems to be working okay.

Pandora Carrollon, Gadget Helmsdottir thank you for your replies. I'll have to admit I didn't even know learning by doing was used in pen and paper rpgs. I would have thought the paperwork needed for it would hamper the flow of a session too much.
Now that I think about it, it actually does also exist within Eve with Project Discovery. I still don't think it can be expanded on too much though. There are too many play styles already that you can't really apply it to and more are emerging as we speak.










Footnote: Hmm, so currently we actually have (a), (b), (c), and (d) in the game. Interesting.

Hahahaha, oh wait, you were being serious, let me laugh even harder... HAHAHAHAHAHA

That is not diminishing returns, by your absurd line of thought for it to not be diminishing returns you'd have to get a daily reward based on a percentage of your total SP. Using your comparison of a 1.5m SP toon to a 50m SP toon, if that 1.5m toon got 10k, the 50m toon would get 333333SP for the same daily reward. However I think even you would agree that is entirely unreasonable, it would get to a point where the daily reward gave you far more sp than you could passively train in a day, because while your training rate will vary with implants/mapping vs the specific attributes of the skill that is training, it doesn't grow exponentially.

The REASON the dailies do not have diminishing returns at all is that the actual skills these SP are being applied to aren't requiring orders of magnitude more SP the more total SP your toon has, its not like in a levelling system. The total SP is irrelevent. 10k SP added to the progress of any skill is the same ammount of progress on that skills whether you've got a 5m SP toon or a 50m or 100m SP toon on that same skill (doesn't matter that at 50m or 100m you probably already trained whatever skill that a 5m toon might be working on, move on). 10k SP is still the same amount of time of training at 5m as 50m (yes your training speed can vary depending on implants and neural map relative to the skill you happen to be training, but lets assume for the moment that whatever your map/implant setup and active skill type are the same in both cases for this argument). Just because the lower ranks of a skill, and the lower tier skills, take less SP to complete vs the higher ranks/tiers in no way means that the 10k SP daily is a diminishing returns setup.

I'll say again, diminishing returns would be the skill injectors, at certain total SP threshholds you actually get less SP injected per use. THAT is diminishing returns.

Sorry, work connection has been acting up....did not think this post made it through.

you're talking about how useful it feels, which is subjective. I will concede that this is the perception point brought up.

My point is that from an objective standpoint, it is not in any way a diminishing return/utility system.

Utility is subjective. I like eating pho (a Vietnamese soup) with tripe, tendon, as well as brisket and eye round beef slices. You might look at that and think "Yuck." Clearly I am getting utility from eating such a bowl of pho whereas you'd prefer one without the tripe and tendon. There is no "objective" with respect to utility.

You are quite simply wrong. Objectively wrong in fact. Oh the irony.