These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#921 - 2015-02-16 15:21:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
CCP Darwin wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Seems to me that for a DEV who keeps repeating he has no part in the game design process regarding the subject, you sure are involved in this and seem to have facts on how "things are". Why aren't any of the DEVS who ARE responsible for this reacting here?


Personal bias showcasing as company policy?


I just find the topic interesting, and the designers on the team are looking at the thread.

I'm offering ideas to provoke interesting discussion, but even if I were personally biased (and I don't believe I am, since I eagerly listen to and think about contrary arguments), you can be secure that I'm not the one choosing what gets implemented in the game from all of this.

You seem to have a lot of interest in this. What, are you figuring out how to sit at lunch with the people under whose area this topic does fall? Are you asking them to get rid of attribute implants?

The problem from my perspective with your involvement is that you appear to be unable to see risk aversive behavior for what it is. We all have risk aversive behavior, and even in this game. If there was no risk aversive behavior everyone's hangars would be essentially empty, because every time one acquired a new nifty ship one would be flying it into every situation.

If attribute implants were removed (and even replaced with something else) there would still be risk averse behavior, and even at the same level of it as is in the game now. People who don't put in implants presently will not suddenly be all willing to risk other implants or hardwires.

The best suggestion I've seen is Rain's about attacking the cost of attribute implants. But even then I do not think it would induce carebearing players to embrace pvp or start flying or living regularly in low or nullsec. What it might do though ironically is create more isk sink. This is because people who do regularly pvp, but just ignore implants out of a lesser risk averse (loss averse) motivation, may very well pop some in once the cost per pod loss is reduced. And on a macro level this might actually result in more isk loss.

However, one would have to consider the collateral effects on the eve economy for reducing the isk or lp investment for attribute implants.

tl:dr You appear to be starting the analysis with an erroneous supposition. Attribute implants create risk aversion (which is probably true), and therefore the removal of attribute implants will reduce risk aversive behavior (which is far from proven, and probably not true). People that play in a risk aversive manner will only find other hooks upon which to hang their risk aversive behavior if attribute implants were removed.

Lastly, Eve is losing much of the unique "attributes" that made it the wonderful game it has been. Racial effects on character development gone. Clone costs gone. Iconic ship parts gone. Attribute implants and attributes themselves soon gone? Slippery but more and more likely slope to removing the entire time based sp system and allowing skill remaps, etc. At that point you should be prepared to lose many of the players that have been with you for years. Good luck with surviving in the WoW genre of games. Eve is unique, will always be niche. The niche can grow some, but to try to become mass market will only result in ruin.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#922 - 2015-02-16 15:23:20 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:

If you have any thoughts on what alternative implant designs that do not affect training might feel as interesting as those that affect training rate, please share them. (Not that you'd necessarily pick them over learning implants in a head-to-head choice, but that you'd look at them and think "Wow, I'd like to undock with that plugged in.")


Before I go off on this, I'm curious, why is "willing to undock with them" the criteria here?

The biggest concern about implants that affect training speed as such is that they don't make in-space gameplay more fun, and in fact provide an incentive to sit in station or log off instead. A better design would be one that encourages playing the game now instead of waiting for later to do so.

Quote:
People just don't fly with Hardwires as much as they do learning implants (you can see this just by looking at any killboard anywhere)

Implants can be almost anything you can think up, they don't have to be constrained to what's in the game now. Don't you think that's more a matter of an unfavorable cost vs. benefit tradeoff than something inherent about combat implants at all?

Remember that implants mostly come from the LP market, and can be as cheap or as costly (or as weak or as powerful) as makes sense from a game design standpoint.



Its the players choice to use implants or not.

Why is Eve moving in a direction of removing player choice?
Suede
State War Academy
Caldari State
#923 - 2015-02-16 15:55:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Suede
CCP Darwin wrote:
Grace Chang wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Or better explained. That's been the biggest flaw, not that it's complex, that it's complex AND you're on your own to figure it out.

If a new player picks skills they don't want later, that's a different issue: at least their skill training has enabled some experimentation and gameplay that might satisfy their curiosity about things they ultimately don't wish to do in EVE. But, the attribute system is just complexity for its own sake.


It is not. It is something that forces a choice. Choice makes people (characters) differ. Notice any RPG worth its salt has attributes? For any of those games your reasoning applies as well. Ultimately it is not about complexity - it is about choice. The idea is, that as a player, you have to consider trade-offs that define your choice: essentially you choose between a short term benefit vs. a long term benefit. You have to THINK what is important to you and what might not be a priority.


Player choice is not a value in itself. Imagine (for a moment) that the skill system required players to train one of two skills early on. One skill cuts their hit points in half, for all time, on all ships. Another cuts their damage in half, for all time, on all ships.

This would be a choice. It's even a choice between two things that directly affect how the core combat game plays out. But, it's a choice that feels bad because it's a choice between two options with no upside, and it's not fun. It would just be bad game design.

When you attempt to play optimally with attribute remaps, you either pick skills in line with your remap (yawn, of course you do) or you find yourself forced to deviate from your remap and it feels bad.


It's just like my hypothetical skills, where best case you'd be optimized for tanking and flying a freighter (where they would provide no benefit), and worst case you'd be bashing a POS for two hours while optimized for tanking (where it would actively make the gameplay less fun).



Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#924 - 2015-02-16 15:58:53 UTC
Suede wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Grace Chang wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Or better explained. That's been the biggest flaw, not that it's complex, that it's complex AND you're on your own to figure it out.

If a new player picks skills they don't want later, that's a different issue: at least their skill training has enabled some experimentation and gameplay that might satisfy their curiosity about things they ultimately don't wish to do in EVE. But, the attribute system is just complexity for its own sake.


It is not. It is something that forces a choice. Choice makes people (characters) differ. Notice any RPG worth its salt has attributes? For any of those games your reasoning applies as well. Ultimately it is not about complexity - it is about choice. The idea is, that as a player, you have to consider trade-offs that define your choice: essentially you choose between a short term benefit vs. a long term benefit. You have to THINK what is important to you and what might not be a priority.


Player choice is not a value in itself. Imagine (for a moment) that the skill system required players to train one of two skills early on. One skill cuts their hit points in half, for all time, on all ships. Another cuts their damage in half, for all time, on all ships.

This would be a choice. It's even a choice between two things that directly affect how the core combat game plays out. But, it's a choice that feels bad because it's a choice between two options with no upside, and it's not fun. It would just be bad game design.

When you attempt to play optimally with attribute remaps, you either pick skills in line with your remap (yawn, of course you do) or you find yourself forced to deviate from your remap and it feels bad.


It's just like my hypothetical skills, where best case you'd be optimized for tanking and flying a freighter (where they would provide no benefit), and worst case you'd be bashing a POS for two hours while optimized for tanking (where it would actively make the gameplay less fun).



Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills



Risk/reward
Choice/consequence

The foundations of Eve.


xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#925 - 2015-02-16 15:59:43 UTC
Suede wrote:

Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills



it's not a bad system. it's a system that you don't like. there is a differenece.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#926 - 2015-02-16 16:10:42 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Suede wrote:
Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills
it's not a bad system. it's a system that you don't like. there is a differenece.
In this instance, I think it's a bad system. The problem with it is that it's not really a choice. The only good way to do it is whatever is optimal for what you want to train, then it's locked you into doing that plan. If you are training for production and decide you want to do some PvP and need a bunch of skills for that, you can either train them slowly, use another remap and break your efficiency for training production, or just not bother trying the PvP. I'd rather it were just as efficient to choose to do anything you want to train for at any time without worrying about how you are going to use your remaps. You'd still have to think about training plans because you can't be the best at everything quickly, you can split out and be quite broad or you can specialise.

Implants are much the same. The best way to do your implants for training is to have attribute implants. There's no benefit to choosing to not have them. What that means is that people will avoid risk simply because they want the implants in to speed up training. Pretty much all of my characters have +5s and empty clones to do stuff in. If I've jumped into a training clone and I'm on cooldown, then I'm generally not going to be jumping into a brawl on that character.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#927 - 2015-02-16 16:36:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Suede wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Player choice is not a value in itself. Imagine (for a moment) that the skill system required players to train one of two skills early on. One skill cuts their hit points in half, for all time, on all ships. Another cuts their damage in half, for all time, on all ships.

This would be a choice. It's even a choice between two things that directly affect how the core combat game plays out. But, it's a choice that feels bad because it's a choice between two options with no upside, and it's not fun. It would just be bad game design.

When you attempt to play optimally with attribute remaps, you either pick skills in line with your remap (yawn, of course you do) or you find yourself forced to deviate from your remap and it feels bad.


It's just like my hypothetical skills, where best case you'd be optimized for tanking and flying a freighter (where they would provide no benefit), and worst case you'd be bashing a POS for two hours while optimized for tanking (where it would actively make the gameplay less fun).



Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills

Only if one is OCD about the whole thing. So, if attribute implants are removed a player that acts as you proposed has no outlet for a disadvantageous attribute setting. So here is a welcome function of attribute implants. An imperfect min/maxer has an imperfect workaround for his own "error" of lack of godlike knowledge of future desirable skill choices.

However, it appears you are also proposing doing away with all attributes altogether. But then at that point the risk aversive argument is moot, at least with regard to sp accumulation and allocation. How does removal of attributes result in a better game?

Or one could just accept that risk aversion will never be done away with and should not form the basis of game design in a game with real (in-game) loss. Likewise, in the case of attributes in general, perfect min/maxing OCD behavior should not form the basis of doing away with a game design which rewards and punishes choices such as where to set attributes. Nor should it in the case of whether to jump through the gate in front of you, without knowledge of what's in the near future on the other side.

If this whole thing is really boiling down to attribute choices and min/maxing OCD fixation, then how about making those players pay for it. Pay real currency (or plex) for more frequent attribute remapping (don't you even think such a thing for sp remapping or GET READY FOR A **** STORM OF EPIC PROPORTIONS, IF YOU EVEN PEEP IN THAT DIRECTION).

The problem with OCD game playing and min/maxing is it supposes a present player with perfect knowledge of future desires and states of the game. This of course cannot happen. So catering to min/maxers will never be satisfactory. They can start out setting a skill plan for the current fotm, and then rebalancing or other game changes come, and their "favorite" ship is no longer king of the hill. At that point they complain loudly for unfettered sp remapping (since attribute remapping no longer exists). Would you like to propose that as well? (see above in all caps, there are many threads from the past where this has been "proposed" by the WoW crowd and shot down in flames by the majority of eve veteran players with both logical and emotional arguments).

You cannot make all the people happy all the time, even in a game. Don't try. You will on the other hand continue to attract the players that value the freedoms and responsibilities for their own character development, and accept a state of lacking knowledge of the future. The present EVE character development through attributes and sp allocation can be subject to many wrong turns, blind alleys, and surprisingly beneficial happenstances, due to changes in one's own predilections as well as re-balances and other game changes. Leave it that way. It has been unique and successful. Smile

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#928 - 2015-02-16 17:00:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Suede wrote:
Attributes is a bad system, just mean it locks you in the one side of traning plan where you have to wait to get new remap
to change to set other skills
it's not a bad system. it's a system that you don't like. there is a differenece.
In this instance, I think it's a bad system. The problem with it is that it's not really a choice. The only good way to do it is whatever is optimal for what you want to train, then it's locked you into doing that plan. If you are training for production and decide you want to do some PvP and need a bunch of skills for that, you can either train them slowly, use another remap and break your efficiency for training production, or just not bother trying the PvP. I'd rather it were just as efficient to choose to do anything you want to train for at any time without worrying about how you are going to use your remaps. You'd still have to think about training plans because you can't be the best at everything quickly, you can split out and be quite broad or you can specialise.

Implants are much the same. The best way to do your implants for training is to have attribute implants. There's no benefit to choosing to not have them. What that means is that people will avoid risk simply because they want the implants in to speed up training. Pretty much all of my characters have +5s and empty clones to do stuff in. If I've jumped into a training clone and I'm on cooldown, then I'm generally not going to be jumping into a brawl on that character.


there is choice, by using a remap you admit knowing it's use and it's effects.
locking you into them attributes boost for the remap timer is the cost of the boost.
if players have an issue with the remap and wants a more balanced training ability, they should not remap.

so here we are now, players claiming remaps are bad, attributes are bad, it can't be me, it must be the system.
the system works fine. i'd like to see more proof that it isn't.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#929 - 2015-02-16 17:18:56 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
there is choice, by using a remap you admit knowing it's use and it's effects.
locking you into them attributes boost for the remap timer is the cost of the boost.
if players have an issue with the remap and wants a more balanced training ability, they should not remap.

so here we are now, players claiming remaps are bad, attributes are bad, it can't be me, it must be the system.
the system works fine. i'd like to see more proof that it isn't.
But choosing not to use them is a negative choice. You're not choosing between two different options with distinct benefits, you either choose to get the benefit or choose not to. Much like the reason clone grades were stripped out, CCP are looking to remove systems which give you one one sensible choice. With implants it's even worse because the choice also means you need to be more protective so you are unlikely to jump into content on a whim. If you've got a head full of implants, you're less likely to jump in on some spontaneous action. The implants aren't there to benefit you in space, they are simply there to make you take less time to train at a cost of being more risk averse.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#930 - 2015-02-16 17:26:28 UTC
The biggest flaw with the whole talk about implants is the assumption that removing them will make people PVP More. Sure you may get a few cases. But for the most part all you will do it take implants away from people who have NO Intentions of PVPing.

There are people, lots of them, in Eve, who will NOT Willingly PVP, no matter what you do.

First it was take away medclone costs.. that'll make everyone PVP.. Nope.
Now it's remove learning implants.
Then all Implants.
After that then what? Persistent ships? So losses don't mean anything and there is no fear at all?

Leave the Choice to us.

Also, I like how it's all about letting people get into pvp.. but there's been no comment on my idea for easing access to jumpclones or making a new implantless clone. Seeing as how it would get the same objective done, a clone with no implants or JC timer, without removing the options for all other situations. Not only does it solve the Learning Implant issue, but it also removes normal hardwires from the equation too \o/
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#931 - 2015-02-16 17:28:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
there is choice, by using a remap you admit knowing it's use and it's effects.
locking you into them attributes boost for the remap timer is the cost of the boost.
if players have an issue with the remap and wants a more balanced training ability, they should not remap.

so here we are now, players claiming remaps are bad, attributes are bad, it can't be me, it must be the system.
the system works fine. i'd like to see more proof that it isn't.
But choosing not to use them is a negative choice. You're not choosing between two different options with distinct benefits, you either choose to get the benefit or choose not to. Much like the reason clone grades were stripped out, CCP are looking to remove systems which give you one one sensible choice. With implants it's even worse because the choice also means you need to be more protective so you are unlikely to jump into content on a whim. If you've got a head full of implants, you're less likely to jump in on some spontaneous action. The implants aren't there to benefit you in space, they are simply there to make you take less time to train at a cost of being more risk averse.



If you or the group you're with isn't good enough to stay alive then don't use them, simple.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#932 - 2015-02-16 17:45:28 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
If you or the group you're with isn't good enough to stay alive then don't use them, simple.
In many instances you won't know whether or not you are in the winning group until it's over. And no, that's not the choice made. Most people just say "I'll just stay docked and save the several days of training time this removes".

I really don't get the problem here. CCP want to remove some of the boundaries that prevent people from readily engaging in content. Why is that a bad thing? Why is it that ANY change is always met with people crying about how terrible and carebearish it is, no matter what the change is. If CCP said tomorrow they were removing concord, someone would still find a way to whine about CCP making the game a themepark. I tell you what, CCP: Stop developing EVE. Apparently it's fine exactly as it is and every change is terrible, so lets just not have any more changes. Is that a better position to be in?

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Grace Chang
Tyrannis Enterprises
#933 - 2015-02-16 17:48:17 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:


Player choice is not a value in itself. Imagine (for a moment) that the skill system required players to train one of two skills early on. One skill cuts their hit points in half, for all time, on all ships. Another cuts their damage in half, for all time, on all ships.

This would be a choice. It's even a choice between two things that directly affect how the core combat game plays out. But, it's a choice that feels bad because it's a choice between two options with no upside, and it's not fun. It would just be bad game design.

When you attempt to play optimally with attribute remaps, you either pick skills in line with your remap (yawn, of course you do) or you find yourself forced to deviate from your remap and it feels bad.

It's just like my hypothetical skills, where best case you'd be optimized for tanking and flying a freighter (where they would provide no benefit), and worst case you'd be bashing a POS for two hours while optimized for tanking (where it would actively make the gameplay less fun).


I disagree. Player choice is a value in itself, because choice is the one differentiating factor. The flip side of the medal "choice" is "consequences". That is what you describe with "no upside" which is the point. It is not true that there is just one way to go with this, if there was, everyone would have +5 in, which they don't. Also try not to define "fun", because you are not necessarily authoritative on this. For me, fun is to design an ideal character for something I planned carefully. For others, it is to jump into different activities with the attention span of a lab rat. Generally though, most people appreciate to look forward to something and tend to compare their "achievements" to others. If you cater to the instant gratification crowd (which incidentally most often is the base IQ level and lowest common denominator) and basically make everyone the same, people will soon look for another game. The original designers understood this, that is why we have this skill queues, attributes and such, because it forces people to invest into a character. It is not only time you invest, it is also the thought process you invest.

If anything attributes have too little consequences.The reason why we have this discussion at all is because you inflated remaps and now complain that attributes are meaningless. They are because you can remap at will. They would not be meaningless if you had just one choice at the start of the game or way less opportunities then today.

One good example how MMORPGs should deal with this is Anarchy Online. It is a crappy game today, but its skill system was and is still peerless. It actually meant that your character was unique. You had to make choices, think about the consequences down the road and you could enjoy the benefits. For me and many others this WAS the fun not necessarily the game play as such. Of course there is also games like WOW where there is no choice at all and you are hunter #14091503243, but do you really think EvE can successfully cater to that crowd without alienating people like me?

The last great game that tried to dumb down a "too complicated" mechanic with "great effect" was Starwars Galaxies. I recall this female Marketing Women saying "people want to be Han Solo, not Owen the farmer". When they changed the game to what they perceived as "fun" all the "Owen the farmer" people left and no "Han Solos" showed up. So to me this discussion has greater scope. Sure we can discuss the attribute system - it is not necessarily ideal. But I can't escape to notice a trend that several mechanics of this game were changed to make it "more fun" for a certain type of people that you usually find somewhere else. If I get the impression that this game changes into something that makes my investments into characters meaningless, I will just stop playing because "it is not fun to me any more".
Kleoptoleme
Doomheim
#934 - 2015-02-16 18:04:42 UTC
Grace Chang wrote:


Player choice is a value in itself, because choice is the one differentiating factor.
... If I get the impression that this game changes into something that makes my investments into characters meaningless, I will just stop playing because "it is not fun to me any more".


Ditto
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#935 - 2015-02-16 18:08:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Aralyn Cormallen
Lucas Kell wrote:

I really don't get the problem here.

Just because you don't understand the other point of view doesn't make it irrelevant, or like you tried to paint it, ridiculous. I don't understand the appeal in covering every meal with enough spices that you can't taste the food under it, but I'm not going to tell everyone in the curry house they are morons.
Quote:
CCP want to remove some of the boundaries that prevent people from readily engaging in content. Why is that a bad thing?

What they want and what will happen is two different things. The boundary exists in the head of the person blocked by it, CCP can't magically wave that away. When this idea fails, whats the next invisible barrier they decide to cut down?
Quote:
Why is it that ANY change is always met with people crying about how terrible and carebearish it is, no matter what the change is.

Because for every change made, there will be people who enjoy that part of the game. Personally, I enjoy the cost of participation. I want to fight, I have to put isk on the line. CCP has just decided I need to put 20-50mil less on the line (and more importantly, everyone I beat has to put that 20-50mil less on the line) every time I fight. That is removing some of my enjoyment.
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#936 - 2015-02-16 18:11:54 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
Remove learning implants. IMO they are just some kind of +XP thingy that doesn't belong in this game. It's just an XP-Boost for ISK and encourages people to stay docked. And if you are at it remove attributes as well. Useless crap.


Right... lets all fly around PVPing with no risk whatsoever other than the ship.... no thank you
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#937 - 2015-02-16 18:35:24 UTC
If we are worried about the LP market, maybe we should have something that speeds up training that is not an implant. Something that sells for LP. For example:
Special skillbooks that give the same skill, but for fewer SP. Fill the LP store with those, and it would be a huge LP sink.
License to a device that increases learning speed. As it's a license, you always have it, even after death.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#938 - 2015-02-16 18:35:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gregor Parud
Lucas Kell wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
If you or the group you're with isn't good enough to stay alive then don't use them, simple.
In many instances you won't know whether or not you are in the winning group until it's over. And no, that's not the choice made. Most people just say "I'll just stay docked and save the several days of training time this removes".

I really don't get the problem here. CCP want to remove some of the boundaries that prevent people from readily engaging in content. Why is that a bad thing? Why is it that ANY change is always met with people crying about how terrible and carebearish it is, no matter what the change is. If CCP said tomorrow they were removing concord, someone would still find a way to whine about CCP making the game a themepark. I tell you what, CCP: Stop developing EVE. Apparently it's fine exactly as it is and every change is terrible, so lets just not have any more changes. Is that a better position to be in?



You can engage in content just fine, just as you can choose to fit faction/DS gear on your pvp ships you can choose to use learning plants.... or not. No one is forcing you to use them and it's just another risk vs reward mechanic as there are so many in EVE. If you don't feel that your group is good enough to win fights regularly then you probably shouldn't use them and, I dunno, get better.

EVE is about risk vs reward and this is a pretty basic example of exactly that, why should we have the risk removed (and, weirdly, everyone wanting close to full reward as a replacement) just because some people are incapable of making the conscious decision or because of others who realised they'd probably fail a lot?


Perhaps you should just get more blues to hide behind.
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#939 - 2015-02-16 18:59:34 UTC
The risk of your ship blowing up impedes every type of play style.

Lets make it so no one loses a ship again.

I can guarantee this would lead to more pvp.

The consequence would be Eve would no longer be the game it is.
Memphis Baas
#940 - 2015-02-16 19:46:44 UTC
Aureus Ahishatsu wrote:
Right... lets all fly around PVPing with no risk whatsoever other than the ship.... no thank you


And why not? Isn't that risk enough? If you could scan for implants like you can scan for cargo, would anybody STOP to scan before attacking? You're judging each encounter by the ships you see in the overview, and you're shooting or bugging out based solely on that information. The value of the killmail is merely a (sometimes pleasant) surprise, a few hours after the fact. EVE PVP is driven by the ships (and by strategic goals), not by the implants.

Regarding the question about incentivizing people to undock, if that's what you want CCP, then incentivize that directly. I did suggest giving SHIPS a skill training bonus as long as they're undocked in space, and got shot down because OMG everyone is going to afk cloak. That's still more exposure to PVP than remaining in station. But in any case, don't give the bonus to any ships that can cloak and people won't afk in them. Just give a big skill training bonus to T1 frigates (for the newbies), smaller bonuses to T1 cruisers (not so newbies), and then varying degrees of training bonus to other ships (T2, capital) as you see fit.

Or give some other incentive, I don't know; I just think the issue is a bit like getting people to go to lowsec: subtle solutions won't work.