These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

New Attribute Skill Implants to counter learning skill loss

First post
Author
NVision08
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-03-07 20:46:03 UTC
They are in the database in EVE. The +6 and +7 attribute boosters. With the loss of learning skills I think now more than ever there should be some way to increase our attributes to separate veteran players from new ones. The first thing to come to mind is to institute the higher attribute enhancers, but then even a new player with enough isk could just buy them. How about instituting them as a bonus for reaching say 30M or 60M SP and they are only for your character. Or maybe newer, higher prereq skills, that are hard to attain?

And how about a skill learning bonus for those who play the game more? Perhaps a % increase while mining, missioning, or using certain modules and ships. Just a way to increase SP would keep me playing the game more knowing that I am increaseing skills faster WHILE DOING something. It would be an added reason Ifor me to actively play the EVE Universe more. I would think this topic has been in the mix before but I am curious why it has not gained any favor. Obviously repetition bots would come to mind first...Or is the general consesus, vets too, ok with the current SP learning system now?
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#2 - 2012-03-07 21:02:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhilia Mann
NVision08 wrote:
Or is the general consesus, vets too, ok with the current SP learning system now?


Six years and 100mil SP later -- yes, it's fine. Please don't **** with it if it isn't broken.

Edit: if you were looking for specific reasons why each idea is bad, here goes:

  1. Skill training is just as fast now as it was before learning skills. Remember that across-the-board attribute boost we got? That compensated for [very nearly] all of the lost attributes from learning skills.
  2. Making it faster for higher-skilled characters to train is a pretty odd choice. +6 and +7 implants that require additional skills would just pull us back into the learning skill dilemma where that skill would be seen (rightly) as a grind that was required just to keep up.
  3. Handing out free stuff at arbitrary SP totals is arbitrary and silly, especially when said free stuff just allows for even more SP accumulation.
  4. As for skill point gain for playing, see the thread still on the first page "Extra Skill Point gain while playing, good idea?" for many, many reasons why extra skill point gain while playing is most definitely not a good idea.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-03-08 04:15:12 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.
Eidric
Private Shelter for Mad People
#4 - 2012-03-08 04:33:38 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.


Fly with 2 +5 implants - even if you get podded the price wont be as bad.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#5 - 2012-03-08 05:36:52 UTC
They already countered the “loss” of learning skills when the skills were removed. No additions are needed.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#6 - 2012-03-08 09:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Eidric wrote:
OfBalance wrote:
IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.


Fly with 2 +5 implants - even if you get podded the price wont be as bad.


I do and so does anyone else with enough isk to laugh off those kind of losses, unfortunately most grunts out in nullsec can't afford 200mil + clone cost every night on top of their ship expenditures. Those players don't deserve to be training slower than the player who's running missions in highsec, but they are.

It's pretty damned simple really. EVE is about risk vs. reward. Attribute implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment.
Mona X
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-03-08 12:03:08 UTC
OfBalance wrote:

I do and so does anyone else with enough isk to laugh off those kind of losses, unfortunately most grunts out in nullsec can't afford 200mil + clone cost every night on top of their ship expenditures. Those players don't deserve to be training slower than the player who's running missions in highsec, but they are.

It's pretty damned simple really. EVE is about risk vs. reward. Attribute implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment.


Last time I checked this game wasn't about training skills.

I need new signature.

Frank Millar
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-03-08 12:05:11 UTC
Risk averse Mission Runners in High Sec being able to amass SP more "efficiently" non-shocker.

What are they going to do with that "excessive" amount of SP? Fit Bling Boats and go pwn those poor scrubs in 0.0?

I don't think so.

Also,

Quote:
...deserve...

In EvE, nobody "deserves" anything.

tl;dr: Attribute enhancers are fine. You either use them, or you don't, and which ones you use is entirely up to you.

Bear
Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2012-03-08 14:09:01 UTC
This looks familiar... where have I seen it before? OH! The majority of the posts in this board.

Why do we need something to make up for the "Loss" of Learning skills baring in mind, we got given +10 to each attribute which is identical to having 5/5 trained AND got a lot of SP to put into non shite which actually has a impact on our game playing.

I lied :o

Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#10 - 2012-03-08 16:00:14 UTC
The only further change I would support to attributes and skill training time is there complete removal.

removing the learning skills was a great move and improved the game for most players.
there is still what could be considered an unfair discrepancy between PVPers whop run with +3 implants due to the cost of replacing them when they get podded, and the high sec incursion and mission runners with the +5 implants with no risk to lose them. NPC's do not shoot pods even in incursions.

I would say give everyone 25 points in each attribute across the board and remove all attribute modifiers from all implants. maybe leave 10 points or so that can be remapped but no implants with attribute modifications. They would make sense if attributes affected combat performance, but they do not. they only affect skill training time. What is the point.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#11 - 2012-03-08 16:41:48 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
IMHO LEARNING implants don't belong in the game any more than learning skills did. They give a distinct training advantage to the risk averse willing to chill in station with +5's on over the go-get-em rookie sporting a pair of +3's (if that) and loosing them daily.


I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-03-08 17:28:48 UTC
Mona X wrote:
Last time I checked this game wasn't about training skills.


Good observation. Maybe something relevant in your next post, huh champ?

Frank Millar wrote:

In EvE, nobody "deserves" anything.


So why give that advantage to either player? Rewarding the avoidance of risk is a stupid status quo, if you're defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo, you've really got no argument at all.

Zhilia Mann wrote:
I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that.


Why is that a compelling or interesting choice?
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#13 - 2012-03-08 20:52:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Zhilia Mann
OfBalance wrote:
Zhilia Mann wrote:
I can sort of see the point here. There's still at least a bit of a balancing act in forcing choice between pirate implants and pure learning implants though and I'm not entirely sure we want to get rid of that.


Why is that a compelling or interesting choice?


Where did I say it was either?

Right now, if you choose to risk your clone, you pick between:

  1. +3s, which are cheap and offering some training benefit.
  2. +4s, which are somewhat more expensive and offer a mid-point cost and benefit
  3. +5s, which maximize your training for ~500mil for a full set
  4. LG implants, which require a training sacrifice but offer secondary benefits and can cost anywhere from 200mil to 1bil
  5. HG implants, which provide the same training as the cheapo option but offer really nice secondary benefits and cost, well, quite a bit


Back in the day, people used to make an argument that mission-runners could use, eg, Crystals, but common wisdom now is to just stick to +5s in a high sec clone. So we're really talking about low and null clones. If we removed attribute implants (and presumably attribute effects from pirate implants) the options would be:

  1. No implants
  2. LG implants, which require pretty decent financial risk for added benefits
  3. HG implants, which require even more significant financial risk for more significant added benefits


So, fair enough, without attribute implants people might be slightly more inclined to use pirate implants (for instance, I have a LG clone that doesn't see much use because I like the training I get from +4s) but there would be fewer choices overall.

If you're arguing that the choice to use or not use LG and HG pirate implants is more "compelling or interesting" than simultaneously considering training benefits -- yeah, I could see the argument. On the other hand, at least some ISK is leaving the economy when a pod with +3s pops, and I very much doubt the current +3 (and even +4) players would line up for LG sets if they were attribute-independent.

Honestly, I could go either way on this one. I wouldn't be screaming bloody murder if learning implants were deleted but neither would I strongly advocate the idea.

Edit: so convince me why removing them would be a huge boon to the game. I'm open to it; make your case.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-03-08 21:18:21 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
so convince me why removing them would be a huge boon to the game. I'm open to it; make your case.


Sounds like you've made the connections already, what more needs to be said?

LG implants see more use, HG implants make more sense as well, young nullsec/wh pilots are not punished for frequent participation in pvp where they are certain to loose pods, and on the whole one more ancient game mechanic that rewards risk aversion is removed.

I'm sure there is a minority in the player base for whom choosing which attribute implants to use is a meaningful choice, but for the bulk of us who are either too rich to care or too poor to get a choice in the first place, it's no choice at all.
JT SPARTAN
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2012-03-08 22:49:13 UTC
I'm new to the EVE Universe, but I think they should leave the learning system the way it is. I think someone said if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The idea of rewarding someone for playing more than rewarding someone who doesn't have as much time to play is ridiculous. We are talking about skills only though, not ISK which is made exponentially more (unless you play the market) if you are online as opposed to (I think they call it) ship spinning.

Fly safe,

JT
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
#16 - 2012-03-09 00:00:12 UTC
Your logic for this is flawed. Your comparison would and should mean the removal of all implants from the game as according to the logic that:
Quote:
implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment


Obviously in this same scenario LG or HG implants also have the same risk/reward, with or without their attribute component, and also affect the rate at which rewards can be gained.

You're trying to justify that players who PvP train slower than people who PvE. This is not the case. You have chosen to train slower because you dont want to spend the money not because PvP made you train slower. If you feel that you are being slighted on your training time, use +5's, if you're worried you will lose them from being podded, dont pvp. It's simple. You're just trying to take some of the risk of loss out of PvPing because you're being cheap.

TL;DR
If you're so concerned about our skill training speed, stop pvping and crying about your implant losses.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-03-09 00:26:38 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Outz Xacto wrote:
Your logic for this is flawed. Your comparison would and should mean the removal of all implants from the game as according to the logic that:
Quote:
implants quite literally reward avoiding risk by allowing you to train more efficiently without repeated investment


Obviously in this same scenario LG or HG implants also have the same risk/reward, with or without their attribute component, and also affect the rate at which rewards can be gained.


Incorrect. There is no passive benefit for sitting in a station with an HG slave set on. Try again and notice the bold.

JT SPARTAN wrote:
I'm new to the EVE Universe, but I think they should leave the learning system the way it is. I think someone said if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The idea of rewarding someone for playing more than rewarding someone who doesn't have as much time to play is ridiculous. We are talking about skills only though, not ISK which is made exponentially more (unless you play the market) if you are online as opposed to (I think they call it) ship spinning.

Fly safe,

JT


I don't know to whom or what issue this was addressed. But attribute implants do promote ship spinning.
Outz Xacto
Echelon Munitions
#18 - 2012-03-09 02:38:59 UTC
+5's dont give a passive benefit in station. Its a static benefit it doesn't matter where you are you get it. Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-03-09 02:49:53 UTC  |  Edited by: OfBalance
Outz Xacto wrote:
+5's dont give a passive benefit in station. Its a static benefit it doesn't matter where you are you get it.


I trust you realize that does not change the point being made?

Outz Xacto wrote:
Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk.


I recall the exact same argument being made about learning skills. Sufficed to say, it made no sense then and it makes no sense now.

And in case you were wondering, this isn't just my own shtick. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=41023
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#20 - 2012-03-09 06:49:36 UTC
OfBalance wrote:
Outz Xacto wrote:
Also CCP clearly sees the benefit of LG/HG implants requiring a tradeoff in attributes on the bonus. If your argument is to just give everyone the attributes (whatever form they are given in) and do away with the implants then yah, you just want to dumb the game down and dont like taking as much of a risk.


I recall the exact same argument being made about learning skills. Sufficed to say, it made no sense then and it makes no sense now.


I don't think it's exactly the same argument. Let's look at this from the post-remap pre-learning removal era and compare it to the current situation.

Learning skills were de facto required because of their inherently high bonuses (+9 or +10 depending on how dedicated you were). The tradeoff between having them -- and thus sinking a huge amount of time before you could train "real" skills -- and not having them was immense and created a barrier to new player entry. This forum was overrun with posts about optimal training plans, which order to get learnings up (and yes, those plans factored in Cybernetics as well), and payoff times for advanced learnings to 5. It was boring but it was quite necessary for any character that was to stay competitive for more than a few months. There really wasn't a tradeoff at all; either you trained optimally or you screwed yourself in the long run for very minimal short term gain.

On general remap, the difference between not having learning skills and having them to +9 was a 100% difference in training time. On a specialized remap, it was 64% on the primary attribute. There were times when over half your learning speed came from learning skills.

So how does this compare?

Attribute implants give a comparatively small bonus (effectively +2 for LGs, +3 for cheap clones and HGs, +4s for intermediate clones, and +5s for expensive clones). On a general remap, the difference in learning time between not having implants at all and plugging in +5s is 22.7%. It's still significant, but it isn't an absolute requirement. The difference between plugging in LGs and +5s is only 12.5%. All of these figures are reduced by optimal remaps. Now it's an actual tradeoff.

Not only that, but training Cybernetics to 5 is pretty piddly, and from there you get access to the full suite of implants. Learning implants are no longer an absolute barrier to entry but can actually be viewed as icing on the proverbial cake. They do, in fact, involve tradeoffs and choice.

So no, the argument isn't the same. Learning skills were crippling. Attribute implants are just cumbersome.

That's not to say that attribute implants should stay; I'm actually more and more taken with the idea that they could be scrapped. But claiming that this discussion is just the same as the old learning skill debate is disingenuous.
123Next page