These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Character Merging

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Inshallah Eichman
Doomheim
#61 - 2014-06-22 23:40:22 UTC
That added nothing to this thread.

To clarify I meant grinding as in waiting. I think if I can pay ISK for a character I should be able to pay PLEX for my own to train more.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#62 - 2014-06-22 23:52:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Dun'Gal
Kirilosk Hareka wrote:
I envision this as putting the work on the player to some extent......the player pulls down a spreadsheet with three columns....columns one and three and your two soon to be merged characters the new one is in the center is the new character....the player pulls over from whatever side the skills he/she is merging.

just skills, money and stuff, no standings this would be the game cost that is paid, as this is a new (name etc...) character.

then you pay your money to ccp, they pull the two characters, merge them, place them where one of the original two were and you off and running.......but starting over standing wise with everyone..........

this sounds too much like buying a name change tbh, can't support this
edit: now if a merge were to take place and it defautled to taking extra skills from the youngest and merging into the oldest's identity perhaps I could get on board. but even then there stands possibilities for abuse.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2014-06-23 15:59:42 UTC
Inshallah Eichman wrote:
I have bought a few characters but they are usually named terribly or don't look like I want them to.

That is the point. Choices and stuff.
Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2014-06-23 16:00:41 UTC
Inshallah Eichman wrote:
I think if I can pay ISK for a character I should be able to pay PLEX for my own to train more.

No.
Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#65 - 2014-06-23 18:56:46 UTC
Inshallah Eichman wrote:
That added nothing to this thread.

To clarify I meant grinding as in waiting. I think if I can pay ISK for a character I should be able to pay PLEX for my own to train more.


I too like to make up my own definitions.

Grinding -v. engaging in repetitive tasks to advance character level in order to access newer content

EVE requires no such thing. Sure, you can argue that acquiring ISK can be a grind for some, but to say skill training is a grind is pants-on-head ********.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#66 - 2014-06-23 19:25:39 UTC
Possible version for consideration, brainstorming a bit here:

Only one character left afterwards, the other does not survive.

The character with the longest existence determines which name is kept.
(With characters already being sold, name recognition having value becomes questionable at best)

Whichever character has the worst reputation, cherry-picked from each faction individually, that reputation is what is kept.

Worst security status between the two is the one that is kept.

All ISK, gear, and ships must be manually transferred first, anything under the name of the other character is lost.

All redundant skill points are considered lost.

I would say that shopping list might be worth debating, rather than one lacking clarity on these points.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-06-23 19:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Possible version for consideration, brainstorming a bit here:

Only one character left afterwards, the other does not survive.

The character with the longest existence determines which name is kept.
(With characters already being sold, name recognition having value becomes questionable at best)

Whichever character has the worst reputation, cherry-picked from each faction individually, that reputation is what is kept.

Worst security status between the two is the one that is kept.

All ISK, gear, and ships must be manually transferred first, anything under the name of the other character is lost.

All redundant skill points are considered lost.

I would say that shopping list might be worth debating, rather than one lacking clarity on these points.


Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#68 - 2014-06-23 19:30:40 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...I would say that shopping list might be worth debating, rather than one lacking clarity on these points.


Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.


To which I point out:
Kirilosk Hareka wrote:
I have posed this question to the powers that be and they said it was/is worth looking into and to place the question out on the forums.....so here it is....

r/

Even a bad idea can inspire good ones, under the right conditions.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#69 - 2014-06-23 19:32:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Nikk Narrel wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
...I would say that shopping list might be worth debating, rather than one lacking clarity on these points.


Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.


To which I point out:
Kirilosk Hareka wrote:
I have posed this question to the powers that be and they said it was/is worth looking into and to place the question out on the forums.....so here it is....

r/

Even a bad idea can inspire good ones, under the right conditions.


I sincerely doubt that anyone who could legitimately be classified as a "PTB" said that about this idea.

I would put even money on that having come from a chat between the OP and a golden retriever in which the OP was obviously voicing the golden retriever's half of the conversation.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-06-23 21:19:41 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.
What is the flaw of the core concept?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2014-06-23 21:27:14 UTC
I think they should just have an easier way to switch characters.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#72 - 2014-06-23 21:33:46 UTC
No one has addressd the duplicated sp.
what happens to it.
It's kinda important.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#73 - 2014-06-23 21:37:09 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
No one has addressd the duplicated sp.
what happens to it.
It's kinda important.


At least 3 people have stated that it would be discarded.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#74 - 2014-06-23 21:38:07 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
No one has addressd the duplicated sp.
what happens to it.
It's kinda important.

I suggested above:

Quote:
All redundant skill points are considered lost.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#75 - 2014-06-23 21:49:54 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.
What is the flaw of the core concept?


...seriously?

The tradeoffs in skill training are an intentional part of the game design. Do I want to train A, or do I want to train B? I can't train them both at the same time. Is it worth the time to train both? If so, which order should I train them in?

Oh, fuckit. I'll just throw plex at the problem, train them both at the same time, and merge them later. It drastically reduces the ceiling on the time requirements to make a "do anything" character, so long as you're willing to throw money at it. It's really no different than, "Pay a plex for a 2x training boost!"

The problem with the core concept is that it idiotically treats the inability to train more skills simultaneously as if it were some sort of bug or oversight, as opposed to an intentional limitation. For the idea to be remotely viable, someone would have to first succeed at making a, "Whaaa, training time too long!" argument, and the score there is pretty much 0 for eleventybillion, so I'm not holding my breath.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2014-06-23 22:13:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.
What is the flaw of the core concept?


...seriously?

The tradeoffs in skill training are an intentional part of the game design. Do I want to train A, or do I want to train B? I can't train them both at the same time. Is it worth the time to train both? If so, which order should I train them in?

Oh, fuckit. I'll just throw plex at the problem, train them both at the same time, and merge them later. It drastically reduces the ceiling on the time requirements to make a "do anything" character, so long as you're willing to throw money at. It's really no different than, "Pay a plex for a 2x training boost!"

The problem with the core concept is that it idiotically treats the inability to train more skills simultaneously as if it were some sort of bug or oversight, as opposed to an intentional limitation.
So the objection is that the utility offered by having multiple functions in a single character is reasonably distinct enough from having those same capabilities split between different characters to justify being treated differently in the aspect of having simultaneous skill queues.

Does that sound correct?

For the 2 character scenario the "I'll just throw plex at the problem" solution already exists, and does so with the benefit of being able to use the divergent skill sets simultaneously. Or even the redundant skill sets for that matter. Taking that loss is something I would consider significant and at a point higher specialties might force redundant training that would somewhat sour the concept and weaken the capacity for abuse as well as force utilization to become infrequent.

Not that your concern doesn't have merit, it's just that I can't imagine that skill dependencies would allow someone to just run wild with it in most cases and even if the could, it wouldn't happen without a likely prohibitive cost.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-06-23 22:26:49 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Hey, great ideas, but there's just one thing I would add to improve upon all of that, and it's that how about we just throw this ****** idea in the rubbish bin where it belongs, because the problem isn't in the details - the core concept is fatally flawed, and this has a zero percent chance of ever happening.
What is the flaw of the core concept?


...seriously?

The tradeoffs in skill training are an intentional part of the game design. Do I want to train A, or do I want to train B? I can't train them both at the same time. Is it worth the time to train both? If so, which order should I train them in?

Oh, fuckit. I'll just throw plex at the problem, train them both at the same time, and merge them later. It drastically reduces the ceiling on the time requirements to make a "do anything" character, so long as you're willing to throw money at. It's really no different than, "Pay a plex for a 2x training boost!"

The problem with the core concept is that it idiotically treats the inability to train more skills simultaneously as if it were some sort of bug or oversight, as opposed to an intentional limitation.
So the objection is that the utility offered by having multiple functions in a single character is reasonably distinct enough from having those same capabilities split between different characters to justify being treated differently in the aspect of having simultaneous skill queues.

Does that sound correct?

For the 2 character scenario the "I'll just throw plex at the problem" solution already exists, and does so with the benefit of being able to use the divergent skill sets simultaneously.


Please describe the two-character training scenario that currently exists that would allow a character to undock a functional dread in less time than can currently be done with single character training.

I'll wait.

Oh, hell, I'll help. There isn't one. So, tl;dr: This reduces training time. Training time doesn't need to be reduced, so this idea is ******* useless.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2014-06-23 22:34:32 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Please describe the two-character training scenario that currently exists that would allow a character to undock a functional dread in less time than can currently be done with single character training.

I'll wait.

Oh, hell, I'll help. There isn't one. So, tl;dr: This reduces training time. Training time doesn't need to be reduced, so this idea is ******* useless.
So the issue wasn't a "do anything" character, but a specialized one which split training time, and the actual issue you have, reducing training time. I can see why you'd have an issue with that. Not sure that can share that opinion since there is only so far up you can go with a single ship and it usually takes more than it's worth to get to the top, but I'm tempted to agree.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-06-23 22:38:28 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Please describe the two-character training scenario that currently exists that would allow a character to undock a functional dread in less time than can currently be done with single character training.

I'll wait.

Oh, hell, I'll help. There isn't one. So, tl;dr: This reduces training time. Training time doesn't need to be reduced, so this idea is ******* useless.
So the issue wasn't a "do anything" character, but a specialized one which split training time, and the actual issue you have, reducing training time. I can see why you'd have an issue with that. Not sure that can share that opinion since there is only so far up you can go with a single ship and it usually takes more than it's worth to get to the top, but I'm tempted to agree.



Anything that reduces the training time for a specialization is going to reduce it for a "do anything" as well, drastically so at the top end. Yes, you would lose a little to training redundancies, but when you consider the rank values at the top, it becomes readily apparent that it would cut out huge swaths of time. There's no need for that, and nobody has succeeded in making an argument that it should be faster, let alone that much faster.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2014-06-23 22:44:29 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Please describe the two-character training scenario that currently exists that would allow a character to undock a functional dread in less time than can currently be done with single character training.

I'll wait.

Oh, hell, I'll help. There isn't one. So, tl;dr: This reduces training time. Training time doesn't need to be reduced, so this idea is ******* useless.
So the issue wasn't a "do anything" character, but a specialized one which split training time, and the actual issue you have, reducing training time. I can see why you'd have an issue with that. Not sure that can share that opinion since there is only so far up you can go with a single ship and it usually takes more than it's worth to get to the top, but I'm tempted to agree.



Anything that reduces the training time for a specialization is going to reduce it for a "do anything" as well, drastically so at the top end. Yes, you would lose a little to training redundancies, but when you consider the rank values at the top, it becomes readily apparent that it would cut out huge swaths of time. There's no need for that, and nobody has succeeded in making an argument that it should be faster, let alone that much faster.
Yeah I can't claim to have a counter argument, thanks for explaining.