Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
6394
   |
Posted - 2015.02.09 11:58:05 -
[1] - Quote
Daravel wrote:I did say the future of EVE hangs in the balance, didn't I?
You did, but with the added caveat that it's your belief, at the end of your second paragraph. Your belief that EVE's future hangs in the balance is irrelevant.
Your points about debate are fine, in general, for the most part, but it is a false dichotomy that fails to accommodate the vast majority of changes that have been made to the game that the vast majority of players have been more than fine with. And that's what matters to the developer's the most, and whether or not someone's belief in EVE's potential survival has any merit is a footnote at the end of a long list of footnotes.
See, EVE is gonna change, but what matters most about those changes is how they mesh with the original ideas and intentions of the game. You can update technology, add WiS, and even add and remove entire mechanics, but if these changes detract too much from the harsh, dystopian 'reality' of what makes EVE, EVE, we have to ask, is it really EVE anymore? Is it still the same game I first paid my subscription? That's why people are 'in a corner' against WiS, because they know how much effort went into such a small 'demo' version of what was promised. All that effort, gone to waste, that could have been spent better adding to the spaceship game. And that's not to mention the outright failure of the very impressive Carbon technology to actually impress - probably Incarna's greatest tragedy was the 'maiden voyage' of Carbon. Like the Titanic, an impressive feat of engineering with more potential than it was given the opportunity, at the time, to achieve.
So far, development of the game, over time, has been vastly beneficial to it as a whole, but when players sense a potential for something that will make the game other than that which they signed on for, they are going to rail against it. Sure, you'll get the odd minority that will whine about things being made too hard for them, the lazy few that can't handle a bit of effort, but they're easy to call out - their arguments against the change will be weak, often clutching at straws.
For me, attribute points are largely irrelevant. I've never even used a remap. Whether they're pulled or not makes little difference to me personally. But for many, it could well be like having spent hours in the hot sun painting a house, doing a beautiful job, only to have the council come in a week later and demolish the house for a new freeway. The effort they put into managing their attributes, only to have it made redundant, would make them a little bitter. IMO, first world problems and they'll get over it, but they're gonna be stroppy at first and probably make some pissweak arguments against any change.
To me, attribute points do overcomplicate a process that need not be complicated. Do they add to gameplay? No, I don't think they do. Actually, the amount of effort people put into jumpcloning in and out of training clones just for the sake of a perceived, however small SP 'advantage', is more than likely detracting from their experience. Too many people treat EVE like a second job instead of a game, and what do they get out of it? A few bytes of data that manifest as a solar system or two that they can call their own? And when EVE does actually die, as all things do one day or another, what do they take from that experience? Will they still own virtual property in their favourite nulsec region? No, of course they won't, they'll have put in all that effort for nothing, and it will be the house they painted all over again.
If this change does nothing more than free up people to learn how to enjoy the game again, then it can only be a positive change for the game as a whole.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|