Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The following was originally posted in the Odyssey 1.1 Skill Renaming thread, but was completely buried in the flood of feedback so I'd like to give this separate discussion its own thread.

A lot of folks asked about the attributes of the proposed reorganization of the skill tree, but only in terms of preserving the current scheme of primary/secondary attributes affecting training time and having consistent patterns of those attributes across skills within a group.

I'd like to take that discussion a step further and ask whether attributes' effects on skill training time are really a game mechanic we want to keep, or whether it's time to let them go. The upside of that system is that it allows people to feel like they're tailoring their character toward what they want to do -- combat pilots can remap to per/wil to train almost all ship command and weapons skills, while industry characters can remap to int/mem to train science and production skills.

But the system has significant downsides as well -- it encourages people to *not* train skills that they could use in the short term, simply because training against their current remap would be "less efficient" than waiting until they can remap attributes. This is especially bothersome for brand new combat pilots who need lots of int/mem support skills to go with their per/wil combat skills. Those pilots must make a lame choice: train "inefficiently" in order to get all the skills they need, or use up bonus remaps or wait over a year before they can be combat-effective.

I'm not sure the upsides really outweigh the downsides at this point. A similar conclusion was made about the Learning skills years ago, and I think that was the correct one, but I think it's time now to make the next step and do away with attributes affecting skill training time.

The simple fix is to just remove attributes entirely, but that would be frowned on by everyone who's invested in expensive implants. Another possible alternative is to let attributes grant some slight amplification of the skills they affect, rather than a training time bonus. So, for example, remapping to per/wil grants an extra +5% amplifier to all skills which are governed by per/wil (i.e. Surgical Strike grants +3% turret damage per level if you're remapped to int/mem, but +3.15% per level if you're mapped per/wil).

Regardless, I'd love some discussion of whether the skill training time optimization mechanic via attributes and remaps is really an interesting enough game mechanic to be worth the un-fun waiting-to-train or training-inefficiently gameplay that it brings along with it.

Finally, since Ripard Teg's opinion surely carries more weight than mine, here is his similar take on this subject from a few years ago: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/10/death-to-attributes.html

Discuss!

I don't like the attributes system. I detest learning implants. Look at the whole thing again and figure out a way to stop skill queues getting in the way of PvP and other fun activities.

So, yes. More or less supported.

so what would decide how long something takes to train for and how would you train for something faster than normal? (normal being balanced stats faster than normal being weighted stats) that being said i do like the attributes affecting skills would be like D&D in space! :D

Choices and consequences are the unique flavor of EVERY game. If you're not making choices it means you're watching a movie. If there are no consequences it means your gamepad is broken.


And so they will if something is deliberately made PITA. Fortunately this discussion is about neither approach.

This goes somewhat hand in hand with clone costs, which are also a major issue, even after the reduction.

Clone costs mean vet toons do not want to undock for PvP simply because even an empty clone is an order of magnitude greater loss than the cheap frigate or cruiser they might want to take out on a roam.

One answer to that, which I have suggested before, is replace clone costs with clone insurance. The "premium" for high SP clones might be the same as the current clone cost, but the difference is you're covered for the term of the insurance, regardless how many times you get podded. It's still an ISK sink, and in fact it's a more effective one because people have to renew every time insurance expires, if they are flying the clone. As it is now, 100m SP vet toons might go years without paying any clone costs, just because they never do anything that results in losing a clone.

Learning implants have the same damping effect. If you want to keep your SP/hr up at a peak level, then you have to put in those expensive +5s, and risk them when you undock. You can mitigate it a little by keeping split clones with Per/Wil in one and Int/Mem in another. But the cost is still there. If you are going to get podded a lot, your only real choice is to fly with a clean clone, nerfing your SP/hr gain. That's a puzzling outcome: Nerfing the skill gain for a player who is playing the game MORE actively and assuming MORE risk in doing so.

The answer to this could be removing learning implants and the attribute buff from mixed implants like the pirate set. You could keep the ISK / risk vs. performance choices that go along with purely skill buffing hardwirings and pirate sets, and then the choice would just be how much ISK in your head are you willing to risk to get that extra edge in combat. The choice there would just be the same as every other choice you make about that to undock in; more ISK undocked means more performance, but if you lose it also means more loss.

The idea of just removing inherent attributes and making all skills train at a constant 2,700 SP / hr without attributes having anything to do with it is a good one. It would encourage new players to train skills because those skills make some sense with their goals and the way they fly, rather than trying to "optimize" or wasting scarce remaps that are almost always squandered before new players even know what they're good for. It also would help a great deal in getting new players to train support skills early and to train a wide variety of things to III or IV rather than thinking they "have to max out ships and guns cause I'm stuck on per/wil for a year."

If attributes and remaps remain, then increasing access to remaps, and exploiting the obvious revenue potential of selling them for PLEX or $20 a pop, would at least allow CCP to justify keeping attributes and mappings on the basis that more money is good for the game, and if players make mistakes or want to switch around more, they can always pay for that privilege.

Bittervets will ***** about either option, but the bitching that comes of this always amounts to the same thing: We had to put up with this crappy system, so you should too. And get off mah lawn! That's a "reason" to keep a crappy system. But it's not a good one.

This was the same argument when first learning skills threads show up, yet the stupidity of learning to learn is now off despite a huge number of posts and rage to keep it (most of those were nothing but alts from same dudes anyway and for this idea that will be exactly the same)

Edit: you could keep at equal numbers all attributes with no implants vs another with specific remap and still no implants, before the specific remap one takes a huge step above the one with all equal attributes it will take a couple years.
The immediate gain is not that important to say it has to be kept because it's an important choice, well it is not really one.
The impact for having specific attributes and implants should be much higher to be a real matter of important choices.

I don't see this point as a downside. If you take out attributes you move EVE that much closer to a World-of-Tanks-esque shooter.

-1 to this idea from me as well.

Not sure I understand your point.

The OP seems to be upset about poor training time modifiers and people having to train "inefficiently", so he suggests removing the very mechanic through which he is able to identify that inefficiency. I'm still not seeing why this is an issue. I've read all the posts so far supporting the removal of attribute training time bonuses and am just scratching my head.

I really have nothing more useful to add to the discussion so I'll leave y'all to it.

It would the self imposed PVP barrier some players place upon them selves, with heads full of +5 implants.

Set all attributes so that all skills raise at their current optimized level (2250 sp/hr) and leave implants giving their current benefits so people could invest in learning implants for specific skills.

Alternatively, remove clone costs completely and lower the sp/hr so that people can choose to increase their risk by investing in learning implants or go with a free clone. If we keep it so that +3s in both prim/sec attributes for your current skill plan keep your training at 2250 sp/hr, then people would have to invest around 20m in implants every time they die.

Either way, this idea that the best use of your training time is achieved by only training from specific type of skills for a whole year is pretty dumb and adds nothing to the gameplay mechanics.