These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Latest CSM notes : Rumours of attribute points/implants being removed.

First post First post
Author
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#181 - 2015-01-26 23:31:48 UTC
Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

I have removed an off-topic and disrespectful post. Please review our forum rules before posting.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

AkJon Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#182 - 2015-01-27 00:29:57 UTC
Please just give us all the skills at V so that we never have to log in again and be done with it already! tia
Solops Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2015-01-27 01:29:38 UTC
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Please just give us all the skills at V so that we never have to log in again and be done with it already! tia

Skills at Level V Splendid Idea! Next Change: You Buy A Ship Its Unlocked Forever It Gets Destroyed And Spawns Again Just Like Your Clones However Thats For the next thread.

Moving To Las Vegas Watch Me Play Poker! enter link description here

The Connoisseur
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2015-01-27 01:44:02 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
The Connoisseur wrote:
Do you realize that every response you give is a strawman/slippery slope and has nothing to do with what we are talking about?



They're all similar to your "New players are affected most adversely by the current system. They are already behind in SP and that will forever be the case unless they purchase a character. To make matters worse, they are in less of a position than older players in being able to afford to replace lost learning implants when podded".

I'll agree that my list is silly, just as your logic is in this regard. That's the point.


Uh, I think you meant to quote someone else because I didn't say what was in that quote and never even mentioned buying a character on the bazaar. Check next time before posting pls.
Black Dranzer
#185 - 2015-01-27 02:21:24 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
It's funny how a quick facts check shows both of you to be amazingly inept at EVE, yet you somehow try to portray yourselves as being capable of knowing what's best for the game.

I could fly a thousand poorly fitted Merlins into the abyss and it wouldn't invalidate anything I said. Getting your head around the nature of character progression is one of those things that any moderately educated person could reason about, even if they never played Eve. This has its roots deeper than Eve. The problem is that Eve players have this blind spot; They think their game is so damned special that none of the normal rules apply.

I wasn't making a proposal, I was making a prediction. "Oh", I hear you cry out in contention, "but he's only predicting it because it's a change he wants". Let me be perfectly clear: There are many changes I want that I don't expect to be implemented, usually either because they're outside of the scope of reasonable implementation, or because they're changes with massive rippling effects. This is not one of those. This is a relatively minor change with a fairly positive outcome that CCP have, apparently, already been considering. If a thousand people rose up and screamed and threatened to burn another hole in a statue, they'd probably back off, but nobody's going to do that because most people realize this is a perfectly reasonable change not worth getting upset over.

The kind of people rejecting this are the usual suspects. People with a fear of change, or a fear of "casualization", whatever the hell that even means. My favorite is the "ironic counter-argument" type. You know the one, it usually starts with "yes I agree" and then makes a half-assed attempt to fly down a "slippery slope" that's about as smooth as a gravel pit, usually concluding with "and then everybody gets a Titan and the game becomes Call of Warcraft". If Eve had its own enforced version of Goodwin's Law, these people would immediately be removed from civil discourse. Alas.

No, this will not cripple the risk-reward dynamic. You could probably remove implants and even pods entirely and it still wouldn't cripple the risk-reward dynamic, because the average player is going to lose far more from ship deaths than pod deaths.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#186 - 2015-01-27 02:45:51 UTC
Solops Crendraven wrote:
AkJon Ferguson wrote:
Please just give us all the skills at V so that we never have to log in again and be done with it already! tia

Skills at Level V Splendid Idea! Next Change: You Buy A Ship Its Unlocked Forever It Gets Destroyed And Spawns Again Just Like Your Clones However Thats For the next thread.



I see you're adopting the itrollu.jpg tactic.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#187 - 2015-01-27 02:50:54 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
It's funny how a quick facts check shows both of you to be amazingly inept at EVE, yet you somehow try to portray yourselves as being capable of knowing what's best for the game.

I could fly a thousand poorly fitted Merlins into the abyss and it wouldn't invalidate anything I said. Getting your head around the nature of character progression is one of those things that any moderately educated person could reason about, even if they never played Eve. This has its roots deeper than Eve. The problem is that Eve players have this blind spot; They think their game is so damned special that none of the normal rules apply.

I wasn't making a proposal, I was making a prediction. "Oh", I hear you cry out in contention, "but he's only predicting it because it's a change he wants". Let me be perfectly clear: There are many changes I want that I don't expect to be implemented, usually either because they're outside of the scope of reasonable implementation, or because they're changes with massive rippling effects. This is not one of those. This is a relatively minor change with a fairly positive outcome that CCP have, apparently, already been considering. If a thousand people rose up and screamed and threatened to burn another hole in a statue, they'd probably back off, but nobody's going to do that because most people realize this is a perfectly reasonable change not worth getting upset over.

The kind of people rejecting this are the usual suspects. People with a fear of change, or a fear of "casualization", whatever the hell that even means. My favorite is the "ironic counter-argument" type. You know the one, it usually starts with "yes I agree" and then makes a half-assed attempt to fly down a "slippery slope" that's about as smooth as a gravel pit, usually concluding with "and then everybody gets a Titan and the game becomes Call of Warcraft". If Eve had its own enforced version of Goodwin's Law, these people would immediately be removed from civil discourse. Alas.

No, this will not cripple the risk-reward dynamic. You could probably remove implants and even pods entirely and it still wouldn't cripple the risk-reward dynamic, because the average player is going to lose far more from ship deaths than pod deaths.


You talk a lot but there's not much really happening, you can try and use as much smoke and mirrors as you want to but that doesn't change the fact that it's obvious why you want these changes and thus why you're trying to smooth talk people into accepting the idea.


This is a gem btw: "No, this will not cripple the risk-reward dynamic. You could probably remove implants and even pods entirely and it still wouldn't cripple the risk-reward dynamic, because the average player is going to lose far more from ship deaths than pod deaths"

So with that being the case as you put it, why remove them if it's not a problem?
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#188 - 2015-01-27 03:00:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Provence Tristram
This would be a horrendous change. This isn't world of warcraft. There's streamlining, and there's attempting to idiot-proof a product that thrives on the existence of idiots. One is a noble pursuit, while the other is an exercise in futility which will ultimately DESTROY THE GAME.

And I'm not talking about this change alone, but rather a pattern that seems to keep edging EVE towards being more and more "user-friendly." The problem is, what constitutes "user-friendly" really depends upon a lot of factors, not the least of them being the IQ of the user. The clone changes made sense because they were just a silly money sink. The attributes, on the other hand, force a player to think ahead about their skill plan in the next 12 months. Choose wrong, and there are consequences -- not grave consequences, but consequences nonetheless.

I'm less hard bit about the implant thing, but the attribute point system is just a part and parcel of the kind of older-theory approach to MMOs; an paradigm I both enjoy and wish to see upheld.
Black Dranzer
#189 - 2015-01-27 03:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Dranzer
Gregor Parud wrote:
You talk a lot but there's not much really happening, you can try and use as much smoke and mirrors as you want to but that doesn't change the fact that it's obvious why you want these changes and thus why you're trying to smooth talk people into accepting the idea.
The idea of being a smoke-and-mirrors smooth-talker is an awesome mental image. I'll take it as a compliment. I choose to picture myself in a tuxedo with a cigar. You will never be able to take this image away from me.

Gregor Parud wrote:
This is a gem btw: "No, this will not cripple the risk-reward dynamic. You could probably remove implants and even pods entirely and it still wouldn't cripple the risk-reward dynamic, because the average player is going to lose far more from ship deaths than pod deaths"

So with that being the case as you put it, why remove them if it's not a problem?

Because you're trying to balance risk/reward when one of the currencies is skill points, and as has already been established, skill points are a finite resource. You can't magic more up, and you can't compensate for potential gain lost. Frankly I'm amazed that Strategic Cruisers are as popular as they are, given that if you lose one you lose SP, but then again I guess it's only SP for Strategic Cruisers, so maybe it balances out. I digress.

When you ask people to choose between suboptimal SP and anything else, they're going to take the anything else. For rich people, this means flying around with +5s, but for less rich people this means sitting in station because they don't want to lose their +5s. It's not really risk reward when the risk outweighs the reward so heavily that nobody takes the risk.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#190 - 2015-01-27 03:24:55 UTC
Black Dranzer wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
You talk a lot but there's not much really happening, you can try and use as much smoke and mirrors as you want to but that doesn't change the fact that it's obvious why you want these changes and thus why you're trying to smooth talk people into accepting the idea.
The idea of being a smoke-and-mirrors smooth-talker is an awesome mental image. I'll take it as a compliment. I choose to picture myself in a tuxedo with a cigar. You will never be able to take this image away from me.
Gregor Parud wrote:
This is a gem btw: "No, this will not cripple the risk-reward dynamic. You could probably remove implants and even pods entirely and it still wouldn't cripple the risk-reward dynamic, because the average player is going to lose far more from ship deaths than pod deaths"

So with that being the case as you put it, why remove them if it's not a problem?

Because you're trying to balance risk/reward when one of the currencies is skill points, and as has already been established, skill points are a finite resource. You can't magic more up, and you can't compensate for potential gain lost. Frankly I'm amazed that Strategic Cruisers are as popular as they are, given that if you lose one you lose SP, but then again I guess it's only SP for Strategic Cruisers, so maybe it balances out. I digress.

When you ask people to choose between suboptimal SP and anything else, they're going to take the anything else. For rich people, this means flying around with +5s, but for less rich people this means sitting in station because they don't want to lose their +5s. It's not really risk reward when the risk outweighs the reward so heavily that nobody takes the risk.



Perhaps it's because... people accept risk in this pvp centric MMO where consequences can be harsh? I realise this may be a radical idea. And no the majority of people opt to NOT sit in stations with +5, if that were the case nothing much would happen in space. I don't know if you've been paying attention at all but people actually undock, some with +5 others without them.

So again, lots of :words: but no actual facts other than the obvious "I'm trying my utter best to sell this idea, because it suits me personally".
Black Dranzer
#191 - 2015-01-27 03:34:21 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
I don't know if you've been paying attention at all but people actually undock, some with +5 others without them.

Yes, because they've crossed the threshold.

It's like this. If you can afford to lose your +5s, it becomes a question of isk risk vs SP reward. You take the SP reward because it's SP.

If you can't afford to lose your +5s, it becomes a question of SP risk vs isk reward. You choose not to risk the SP because, again, it's SP.

If a person is undocking with +5s in their head, that means they're either rich, stupid, or very very careful.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#192 - 2015-01-27 03:34:50 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
people accept risk in this pvp centric MMO where consequences can be harsh?


I'm not on the team that brought this question up with the CSM, but I do have a question for you.

If your practice, normally, is to spend, say, 50 million ISK for a pod full of implants today, why would that not be your practice tomorrow, if learning implants were to be removed?

Wouldn't you just spend your money on hardwirings instead, and maybe get an even larger edge in combat?

Or, is your concern that learning implants would be viewed by the average player as inherently more valuable than non-learning-implants, so their willingness to spend on their pod decreases?

I ask because it's not evident to me that making skill training speed independent of implants will somehow reduce the overall average value of a pod, or the average risk that a player is willing to take on its contents.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#193 - 2015-01-27 03:44:09 UTC
Learning implants are awful. This is nothing to do with PvP risk - I routinely fly with mid-grade pirate sets. The problem is that they make you choose between learning efficiency and PvP efficiency, which has a flow-on effect of reducing PvP. They should be removed from the game entirely.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

bloodknight2
Revenu.Quebec
#194 - 2015-01-27 03:49:20 UTC
Brigadine Ferathine wrote:
I mean the risk for newer players is MUCH higher with the implant system because we need the speed boost. A set of BASIC +4's runs about 130million. That is insane. Older players don't need that boost. Why make noobs take more risk than older players? It is backwards logic.


Cry moar.

You DO NOT NEED +4 implant. In fact, i have billions of isk and still buy +3 to my alt because the price for +1 attribute doesn't worth it in my opinion.

Next, removing faction modules because the poor noobs like you cannot afford buying mods worth hundreds of millions for only a small bonus? Removing skill hardwirings giving +5% to something because the new player cannot afford one?

130m isn't a lot. 130m is around 2 time cheaper than a fully fit BS. 130m is what you can make in 4-5h when you are quite new to this game.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#195 - 2015-01-27 04:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
CCP Darwin wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
people accept risk in this pvp centric MMO where consequences can be harsh?

I'm not on the team that brought this question up with the CSM, but I do have a question for you.
If your practice, normally, is to spend, say, 50 million ISK for a pod full of implants today, why would that not be your practice tomorrow, if learning implants were to be removed?
Wouldn't you just spend your money on hardwirings instead, and maybe get an even larger edge in combat?
Or, is your concern that learning implants would be viewed by the average player as inherently more valuable than non-learning-implants, so their willingness to spend on their pod decreases?
I ask because it's not evident to me that making skill training speed independent of implants will somehow reduce the overall average value of a pod, or the average risk that a player is willing to take on its contents.
If I am likely to lose the pod, I wear no hardwires and might have some learning implants in, by happenstance as there is a limit to how many jump clones one can have.

If there are no learning implants and only higher stats, I will wear no hardwires and just bank the ISK.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#196 - 2015-01-27 04:42:46 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If I am likely to lose the pod, I wear no hardwires and might have some learning implants in, by happenstance as there is a limit to how many jump clones one can have.

If there are no learning implants and only higher stats, I will wear no hardwires and just bank the ISK.


Great, but why? Can you explain your reasoning?

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#197 - 2015-01-27 05:03:44 UTC
If I may, the reasoning might well be "stats". Since implants are on kill/loss mails now, and I see them on killboards, it can hurt muh stats if I get popped in a 20 million ISK ship, which is no big deal, but there goes a billion ISK in implants (for sake of argument) in the time it takes for the instaloki to hit it (one second).

So I think it would, based on what I have observed for years, that those who fight with implants will simply use the slots for something else - adding to the point that removing learning factor implants might help PVPers - and those who do not will continue not to and nothing changes for them.

I say move the attributes to implant sets as extra bonuses to existing PVP oriented sets so that PVPers who take more risk with implants get more bonus from that.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#198 - 2015-01-27 05:22:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentient Blade
CCP Darwin wrote:
Great, but why? Can you explain your reasoning?


I personally usually fly without hardwires, the exception being when I maybe need a couple of extra percent powergrid or CPU.

Usually I just fly around with 2x +3s in for whichever attributes I am polarised mapped to, which for the past couple of years has been perception / willpower. That is a sign in itself that the learning system at the moment is terribad. I am locked into a perc/will mapping because that is the only logical choice to make for the skills that I want to learn. Should there be a new skill that requires int/mem for example, I have my +5s to rely on, but I am still going to be heavily penalised by my only-sensible-choice mapping.

I keep a full set of mid grade slaves in one clone, and I think one of my alts has scanning implants somewhere or another, but these rarely see fun combat because for flying anything short of a carrier I can still be blobbed off the field in seconds and podded in a bubble and for the amount of ISK I have available, it's just not a good choice.

Would I increase my use of hardwires if I no longer had to replace a couple of +3s / +4s every time?

No, I doubt it. Granted there are some which are more generic that may be more tempting, such as gunnery damage multipliers and tracking speed, but if I then want to fly something else (which as a regular NPSI pilot is not unusual) then those particular hardwires may not be up to the job giving me a choice of a) jump cloning if possible, b) tearing out my hardwires and replacing them, or c) flying with ineffective hardwires and still take the loss if I lose them.

Chances are if we didn't have to worry about attribute implants, I'd forgo the hardwires entirely and spend the 25 to 50m it costs me each time on an entirely new cruiser, or half a dozen frigs.

Get rid of remaps, get rid of attribute implants. Both of them are a symptom of a system which is broken. I am weary of having to tell newbies that the most technically efficient way of opening up new parts of the game (ships) is to do the least fun thing possible, which is polarised remaps, implants, and staying away from combat.
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#199 - 2015-01-27 05:35:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
i was never a fan of learning implants. The only reason why i never sit in an expensive pod is that 90% of the fits i use rely on genolution 1-2

This means even if i would like to jump into an expensive snake/slave/crystal pod it would mean that i would have to fly this one ship for the whole evening and nothing else. Means cheap generic pod > anything specialized in my case

I would love to see clonjumping within stations without cooldowns, however this would only work if learning implants would not exist. Otherwise you get literally penalized for undocking and not being in your +5 set.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#200 - 2015-01-27 05:38:30 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
people accept risk in this pvp centric MMO where consequences can be harsh?


I'm not on the team that brought this question up with the CSM, but I do have a question for you.

If your practice, normally, is to spend, say, 50 million ISK for a pod full of implants today, why would that not be your practice tomorrow, if learning implants were to be removed?

Wouldn't you just spend your money on hardwirings instead, and maybe get an even larger edge in combat?

Or, is your concern that learning implants would be viewed by the average player as inherently more valuable than non-learning-implants, so their willingness to spend on their pod decreases?

I ask because it's not evident to me that making skill training speed independent of implants will somehow reduce the overall average value of a pod, or the average risk that a player is willing to take on its contents.



Learning implants grant a bonus that persists after they are destroyed, hence I prioritize them over other options when filling my head with implants.

I have a +5 learning clone (for when I am not actively seeking PVP or do not expect my clone to be at risk), a +4 learning clone with cruiser-oriented hardwirings and a +3 'ganking clone' with implants oriented toward Catalyst suicide ganking (also used for any operations in WH or null).

In each of these, I spend at least 4 times as much on the stat implants as on hardwirings, and I expect this would not change.

If I was involved in nullsec fleetfights, I would plug in two +3 implants (relevant to the skill I am training during the op), and the highest impact cheap hardwirings, unless my ship and/or the operation warranted slaves, crystals, halos, virtues or some other bling. (I don't presently fly anything valuable enough to justify those implants).


So to answer your question - I would spend considerably less on implants if learning implants are removed.


To throw a question back at you. Are learning implants a significant LP sink in the economy? A set of +5s is a lot of LP that someone has spent. What economic implications would removing that sink have?

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com