The Good ole Balance Debate

[Rbstr]

Malorn: (posting something for your reply to me ealier, skipping everything else)
Yeah, they've continually made it easier for noobs. Why is that not a valid strategy?
It's not simply because old players are ahead but because the number of things available to do has increased dramatically. There are many, many, more skills now than when I started. I still can't even build a single ship, a feature that's existed since before I started. Players have NOT homogenized to all specializations, they do what they want.

Not being initially able to compete at the top level and having to chose a specialty is simply not detrimental to the game. It's part of the game's atmosphere, an intended "Jesus, this galaxy will tear me to pieces and shit on my grave. I need to figure out what I'm going to do.". EVE is a long term game. If you go in expecting to be handed anything at all you're playing the wrong game.
If you insist it creates some kind of insurmountable gap you are simply wrong.

At the same time I don't insist that PS2 conforms to the exact specifications of EVE's system, which is rooted in a time-based RPG combat system where leveling is always a large part. Simply that it works in one implementation and could easily be organized to work well in PS2.

There is absolutely no reason that some "Enhanced armor" skill doesn't give you access to an armor tradeoff situation between mobility and protection. When you combine protection and a similar tradeoff on a weapon for close range and on and on, Yeah you'll have you'll have a 20% advantage at 20m range against noob that doesn't have the options. But the more important things is that, maybe, you have a 40% against some guy that made the opposite tradeoffs indoors, but would decimate you out doors.
And 1000% against the AV trooper that specialized in killing tanks instead of meatbags.
These advantages are not simply products of levels or time but of choices you make on the type of engagement you hope to prevail in.