EVE General Discussion

A couple of years ago most roaming fleets were battlecruisers. They were more expensive and far easier to catch. The risks were real. The stakes were high. The roams were fun.

I dont fly roams often now.
Less destruction, less consumption, and stuff.

I can't claim to know this as a fact, but I suspect this is due to limitations within the legacy code, and the work required to fix it would be far beyond a "little fix".

Just guessing based upon previous conversations I've seen where "spaghetti code" was the reason things were the way they were.

I'd much rather scrap the attribute/remap mechanic than have to juggle more JCs. Either way, you are making it so people can get the max SP/hr and still PVP. Changing the jump timer would also negate the force projection changes that CCP made. Pilots would just have multiple clones in multiple stations as a way to avoid fatigue while still jumping all the way across the universe.

This- it's pointless to add value to a risk assessment based on an item that does not directly impact whatever you are undocking in.

So what is this the argument for removing attribute / learning implants ?

- remove them so people will pvp more ?
No care bears will not pvp and they will find another excuse to not pvp

- Learning implants doesn't give players a choice.
Yes they do and they give lots of choices
you could get plus 5 train faster ,but if u lose u lose a lot. You could get plus 4 train slower than +5 but don't lose as much , etc

- Newbies doesnt know how to save their pod / the importance of implants
well they ******* should read or ask other to find out why implants are important
we are were newbies and we all did our research to find out what implants are for .

- CCP I wanna train faster but i want to pvp
you have two choices
******* pvp in your training implants you risk a lot, but you keep training and there is no cool down timer
or jump clone your implants gonna be safe , but you don't train as fast and u have a jump clone timer

they may not impact what u are flying directly but they do impact your performance in whatever you're training which will greatly impact what u are undocking or planning to undock .

I'll offer a few more thoughts and then disappear again, but I do want to remind everyone that I'm not a designer working on these changes, just an interested EVE player with opinions (which, by the way, have changed substantially since I first heard about this idea, as I've thought about it.)


To be fair, the discussion is really about removing attributes, remaps, and bonuses from implants to attributes. Learning implants are part of the picture but not the biggest part.


Increasing willingness to PvP with implants plugged-in would be a nice outcome, but it's not really the core reason for the proposal. It's also likely to happen, as people who don't need learning implants will probably spend more money on average for implants that affect ship piloting.


The problem isn't that attributes don't provide choice, the problem is that the choices do not have meaning. Let's say you have a desire to do a thing in game, like fly Logistics. As it turns out, training those skills optimally requires going deep into int/mem, training out ALL your support skills, then remapping to per/will and training out ALL your ship skills.

Without attributes, you would probably be training a little support and a little from ship skill categories so that you could get started quickly and improve as you play, but attributes provide what amounts to a large skill point reward for training things in a nonsensical order that makes you wait to play the game.

The current concept represented in the game today might be better if attributes mapped more cleanly to functional roles in EVE, but remember that even taking attributes out entirely and having a flat skill training speed wouldn't remove that choice of how to specialize. You still would have to train skills in an order that gets you somewhere you want to be, and the most efficient way to do that would be to train for the thing you'd like to do.


As my last post pointed out, if anything players would be more likely to risk a valuable pod without learning implants, because the alternatives (both currently existing hardwiring implants and maybe something new too) would reward not just using the implants, but flying ships while using them.

Also, a new player who learns some time into the game about the implant system would instantly see the benefit of getting some implants, and not feel like they'd missed out on months of skill training that they'll feel should have been faster.


It's also worth being clear that the idea behind removing attributes is about simplifying a current system that provides muddy and counterproductive incentives, where you spend a lot of money to speed up your training and after that skill training choices feel bad, because every path in the game requires training numerous skills for which you have the wrong remap and possibly wrong implants too.

Thank you for this post. It shows that people at CCP, which includes you,
are really putting a lot of thought behind what they are doing.


I just read your other post as well. I hope you share your thoughts with the colleages as well ...
... because you made a very smart, insightfull post up there, you know?

The game designers working on this have made clear that economic considerations related to this proposal are a significant concern and need a good solution.

(Once again, I'm not one of them.)

Darwin, I apologize for bringing in another issue right now, but that contradicts something else that is awkward about skills, and unexplained: The random selection of support skills for T2 ships and the waiting to fly a T2 ship without the option of flying a weakly-skilled one.

T2 level V prereqs table

Pragmatic arrangement of skill prereqs

I want to agree with you unequivocally, but why is such pragmatic logic applied to this situation, when there's another issue that is just as blatant and uncomfortable, and is not being considered for reform?