For those who accuse CCP of Making Eve Online 'Pay to Win'

There can be many definitions of “winning” EVE.

One of it is leaving it (as in winning with your addiction), so I dont really know what this thread is about. Can you write your definition of winning eve, and support it with some numbers of spent income to win it the way you think about?

You really are clueless on game mechanics, aren’t you? Your ‘corp mate’ was also.

Here’s some tips, for those of you who are trying their hardest to pretend EVE isn’t EVE, it’s something else:

  • Many skills don’t ‘cap’ at 5, reaching 5 unlocks the next skill up which continues to increase power.
  • Many powerful ships and modules require you to cap one skill, then the next, then the next, until you have all unlocked.
  • The difference between 4 and 5 is not ‘minimal’, it’s the exact same as the difference between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. For the mathematically challenged, ‘5 times something’ is greater than ‘4 times something’.
  • Having more skills at 5, and more skills trained, has a synergistic effect on ship design. You can more easily fill defense holes, increase combat limitations (range, tracking etc), select a better ship for the task, and so on.
  • Having more non-combat, ‘support’ skills trained up (social, trade, production etc.) strengthens your ISK earning and other support functions, so that you can more easily acquire, outfit and risk ships.

A subscription fee is not, as stated, normally P2W… except when you tie skill training directly to subbed time. Then it becomes a variant of P2W. Vet players, “I’m just more skilled than you”, people who bling ships without knowing how to fly them… these are all the smoke screens EVE players keep throwing out to pretend it’s not P2W.

And as stated, multiple times, but some people are hard of reading… I don’t care that EVE is set up that way. Pay all you want, fine by me. I just feel, and believe that industry trends and EVE trends are clearly showing, that the EVE ‘pay to train skills’ model is old, unattractive, and needs to be updated. As do many other core aspects of EVE, of course.

Seriously, do you think for even two seconds before you write stuff like this? Many important EVE skills take literally months and years of training, yet you are claiming no barrier at all between new players and ‘the most hardened vets’ except game knowledge and ‘variety’? Or allowing new players to ‘catch up’ to people who are years of the game ahead of them?

People who can do math start EVE, look at the way it’s set up, figure out they will always be literally years behind everyone who’s been in the game a fair bit longer than them. Then they find out there is no separation of ‘newer guys’ from ‘long time players’… it’s all one big sandbox.

That steadily dropping player population chart for the last 6 years? That’s thousands of potential players per week saying ‘Pass’.

Behind in what? SP number? Flying cap don’t make you better player. neither billions in your wallet. Current problem of EVE are people that think if they don’t have all skills on lvl 5 fully purple ship they cant play and enjoy game. Btw. grinding isk is not a game.


I disagree. ‘Pay to Win’ means (to me), having to pay to get something you can’t get otherwise. Skills accumulate more slowly without injectors, but they do accumulate nonetheless. If the only way you can acquire new skills is with Injectors, then you’d be right - but it isn’t so you’re wrong.

eta: When you’re an Omega you train at twice the speed of an Alpha - are you going to claim that that’s ‘Pay to Win’, too ?

wen eye wuz onlee a litle boie i arsked mi mum wart wood bee teh best wai to bee a gud carpsuilear and wot she sayed has aulweys bean in mi hed;

“don do badd thinges
onny do gud thins
nevar poot jamm on a mag net
nevar poot a pigg down yer trousers
and alwayes treet yore neebor as sumwun wot lifes neckst door to yoo”

sow thats wat i caul “play to whin”

1 Like

The trouble is that so many misread that as “play to whine”…

1 Like

All skills are capped at 5, the fact that a level 5 skill may unlock further skills doesn’t alter the fact that there is no skill level beyond 5.

  • Many powerful ships and modules require you to cap one skill, then the next, then the next, until you have all unlocked.

Yet all the skills you need to train for said ship are capped at 5.

  • The difference between 4 and 5 is not ‘minimal’, it’s the exact same as the difference between 2 and 3 or 3 and 4. For the mathematically challenged, ‘5 times something’ is greater than ‘4 times something’.

While 5 is certainly greater than 4, returns on skills are diminishing in nature due to the ramping up of the time required as you climb the skill from level 1 to 5, and that the skill level bonus’ are applied to the base attribute, not the cumulative one.

Time also has to be considered when claiming that the difference between a lvl 4 and lvl 5 skill is minimal, the consideration being do you really want to spent weeks or months training for lvl 5 when lvl 4 is 80+% as effective.

Unless it is required to advance the answer is often sod that.


In my definition? sure…

This is the perfect example for your “can’t get otherwise”…

There should be no learning advantage for omegas just because they are omegas…



maybe.but they exist so what to do?

As do Omega’s faster time training, so what to do?

1 Like

Everyone knows Eve is pay to lose…the more u pay the more u end up losing.

The more you play, the more time you invest building, the more you lose.

The only way to win is get numbers - other players to join your fleet.

Eve is seriously flawed.

So how come you’re omega?


I would also be omega if there would be no learning boost…

Simply because i support the sub system and want nothing else…

All this micropayment stuff gives me boils…

Ah gotcha. So its ok for you, just not other people. I see.

How noble.


I don’t get what you are interpreting in…

Just understand what you want to eh? :slight_smile:

I understand perfectly.

You say Omega shouldnt have 2 x Skill Training, but you are still using it yourself.

You want others to do without even though you wont.

no i’m saying i would also be omega if that would be NOT be the case…

sry but your answer looks like you wanted to turn around the words in my mouth…and this is anything but polite…

How is this misunderstandable with a little bit of good will?

In what way?

So pointing out you wanting something changed, but continuing to use it in a way you feel is wrong is being rude?

If you disagree with a thing, you probably shouldnt use it then, should you?

Means you dont actually believe in what you are talking about.
Why would anyone be convinced to agree with you if you dont believe in your own message?