These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rationalising the skill training & implants sytem

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mario Putzo
#221 - 2014-12-22 18:10:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Violet Hurst wrote:

A minor concern i have about it is that it would somewhat empower cybernetics. Eventually this could be countered by introducing specific prerequisite skills for different groups of hardwiring / faction set implants or tying their use to some appropriate skills that already exist, but which aren't too powerfull. Off the top of my head an example might be the specialized rigging or science skills.
Please note that this is a minor concern though and addressing it is by no means a prerequisite to make the idea work.


My only concern with adding prereqs to extend time needed to get the best stuff is potential for dead end training. I do however share the concern that the implant market might make cybernetics a must have level 5 skill which I also think is not an optimal outcome. That being said I think a combined skill set thing would be provide good speed bumps along the way.

IE.

HG Slave
Cybernetics 5
Hull Upgrades 5

With the other sets requiring less combined skills (IE Low Grades needing 3 and 3)

This way you can match the implant skills to a skill that is ultimately going to either A) Be trained, or B) Should be trained for use with that implant.

Snakes > Navigation
Crystals > Shield Operation
Missile Hardwiring > Missiles

etc etc etc.

I think if the above was done you would be able to avoid a dead end training program. That being said, learning Implants should not have the secondary requisite skill, they maintain the Cybernetics training only.

Quote:

2) is something i personally would skip. For one 1) is likely to already impact the price of implants negatively in the long run, so reducing it further might not be the best idea.
And second it kind of removes a choice i mentioned earlier in this thread: To pod or not to pod. Situations where a pilot might ponder this question are in the current system one of the few occasions where being the nice guy has no negative financial consequences.
.


I don't think that is a legitimate concern to be frank, people kill pods or don't kill pods not because of the ISK factor but mostly because of the standings impact in LS and HS. Would there be an uptick in people killing pods, maybe, but there would also be an uptick in people holding pods for ransoms. If you make the assumption that all pilots are in implants so you may as well shoot them, why not extend that assumption to holding for ransoms. I think that in that regard the game will not see much change.

In regards to having the market take a double dip hit, I firmly believe that the largest drag on Implant usage/viability is the cost of them. Simply stick your head into any NS alliance and ask how many use implants, when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. The cost of higher tier implants is often several times more than the ship you fly with them, and in NS where loss of pod potential is much higher (WHs too) the risk/reward factor is very lopsided. Its cheaper to just buy a new ship than a new ship and your 1B+ Implant set.

Making implants more cost efficient will increase their use, and despite some dropping will still increase net consumption of them. If there are more in use, there are more to lose. I would imagine that the market would take a hit, but the frequency of sales should increase as well.

Quote:
I can see where the rest of your post is going and have to say this might lead to the creation of something really interesting, however right at the moment it's far too big in scale for me to wrap my mind around.


Quick summary would be:
> Tie implants to attributes
> Require x number of attribute points as a fitting requirement. (varies by implant tier)
> Make remapping a station service with a scaling cost based on frequency of remapping.

> (+Attribute points from Implants will increase available fitting capacity of associated attribute.)

IE.
Perp 20
Will 20
Mem 20
Int 20
Chr 20

You want to fit HG Slaves which require 5 P per slot
- you have 20P, but also get 5P from one implant giving you 25P Total.

This means you have 0P for any potential hardwirings in slots 6-10.

However lets say you remap out of CHR to PERP
PERP = 25
CHR = 15

Now you have 25 points, +5 from the implant giving you 30P for fitting, letting you fit the HG Slaves and retaining 5P for use on implant slots 6-10.

Of course this would apply only to the Bonused Implants and Hardwiring, Attribute modifiers can be fitted without concern for associated Attribute requirements.

(I dunno if that makes any more sense I am pretty stoned atm so vOv)
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2014-12-22 20:08:09 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#223 - 2014-12-22 20:25:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein


As CCP stated with Med clones; risk vs reward should not be tied to your SP, unless you're flying a T3 which is part of their balancing design.

Quote:
Death Matters...

Those are the changes coming in Rhea, but before I go, let me talk to you a bit more about death, and about what comes after Rhea.

EVE is a game built on connections. It is a network of NPCs, ships, structures and players, all interacting with each other in a single, unified space. These interactions are what drive the universe forward and provide meaning for players who inhabit New Eden. We want every choice you make as a player to impact the world around you. From the rookie ship mining Veldspar to calling targets in the largest Alliance battles, your actions in the game should have meaning and affect other players either directly or indirectly.

Death is one of the most meaningful things a player can experience, and can happen at any time. The consequences and meaning a player applies to the loss of their ship is very powerful, and the ways they can affect and deal with that loss are very real.

The same cannot be said for the current clone death mechanics. They are not a real choice, they are an illusion of choice. A choice between a bad option of losing ISK, and a worse option of losing skillpoints. A choice which does not affect the EVE universe as a whole, other than to empty players accounts of ISK and discourage the same interactions we want to foster.

It is for these reasons we have set down the path of changing the death penalty, and ultimately how clones work, to bring these systems in line with the rest of the vision for EVE Online.


... But Death is Just the Beginning

These medical clone changes are just the beginning of a larger project revolving around clones and their purpose in EVE. While we are still in the early stages of design, the Rhea changes are our first step towards the future possibilities of clones. We will maintain the meaningful nature of death and we are going to give you ways to interact with that death which will affect the whole EVE universe.


I've marked the part which matters.

In an earlier part of that post, this was stated.

Quote:
There will no longer be any clone grades.
You will not have to upgrade your clone upon being pod killed. New players can be badly surprised by this system since they have so many other important things to learn. Forgetting to upgrade the clone and losing skill points because of that is a terrible experience for new players. Skill point acquisition is very much tied to your subscription and the real money you spent on the game, so taking some of their skill points away can feel like wasted money to the player.


I've highlighted the important part again.


Based on the specifically highlighted parts of the comments, it seems that CCP is in the process of SP no longer being tied to your character, but instead being tied to your subscription.

Therefore, the only logical next step is the removal of attributes and anything that effects them.


When it comes to players taking more risks, I've never heard the costs of med clones being considered an issue.
Players have always simply thought of this as immersion in order to give you a sense of loss, much like losing a ship.

The dispute amongst players has always been over learning implants.

Edit..
If you wish to read the full post, you can find it here....
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#224 - 2014-12-22 20:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein

I think the post above addresses this well, but to add, the current system hurts newbies the most. The players that can afford replace these implants are richer, veteran players. So newbies who are already behind on skillpoints and will always be behind on skillpoints are left earning them at a lesser rate.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Taresh Jahemis
Yashida Industries
#225 - 2014-12-22 21:32:21 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Quote:
The same cannot be said for the current clone death mechanics. They are not a real choice, they are an illusion of choice. A choice between a bad option of losing ISK, and a worse option of losing skillpoints. A choice which does not affect the EVE universe as a whole, other than to empty players accounts of ISK and discourage the same interactions we want to foster.

Skill point acquisition is very much tied to your subscription and the real money you spent on the game, so taking some of their skill points away can feel like wasted money to the player.

Based on the specifically highlighted parts of the comments, it seems that CCP is in the process of SP no longer being tied to your character, but instead being tied to your subscription.

Therefore, the only logical next step is the removal of attributes and anything that effects them.

Thanks a lot for digging out those comments, Joe. I had not realized that CCP themselves had already made such a compelling argument for the standardization of learning rates.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#226 - 2014-12-23 11:16:03 UTC
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein

I think the post above addresses this well, but to add, the current system hurts newbies the most. The players that can afford replace these implants are richer, veteran players. So newbies who are already behind on skillpoints and will always be behind on skillpoints are left earning them at a lesser rate.


Newer players will allways be behind on *total* SP. Does that matter? Not one bit, they can always match a veteran player for total SP that are relevant in a given hull in time.

As for the points raised about CCP removing med clones because of SP loss this is entirely different. Players are not losing SP from not plugging implants in. You pay you subscription and are given the basic SP rate. You can enhance that above others by paying the price and taking a risk, just as you can enhance your isk/hr by paying for a blingy ship and putting it at risk.

Player A likes flying frigs in hisec and invests his money in +5's to learn faster. He caps out his frig skills faster than Player B in null earning much more isk than he is from combat anoms but after a marginally longer training time. Both players are putting isk at risk to a greater or lesser degree. The hisec guy has less risk on his implants but gets less in return for the SP he acrues.

Also so what if the hisec player gets SP faster? There is a natural limit on what a player can do in hisec governed by the ships you can fly and infrastructure you can own/build. Once you reach that limit what use is gaining the SP faster without going to null where they will be in the same position as others?

I like the differences between sec regions and the choices that those differences make players consider. Removing one of those choices because the null folks are jealous of those in hisec having the opportunity to gains skills faster would just be wrong.

As for this hurting new players more a new player is guaranteed to be overwhelmed with learning the interface and gameplay for the first 2-3 weeks. In that time all relevant skills for a small ships can be trained to level III/IV, I know because that's what I did and I was running in level IV missions in an incursus alongside a corpie who was showing me the ropes. Early skills are also low multiplier so take much less time to learn which reduces the difference between having +2's or +5's considerably.

Any player who needs the basic skills training any faster must already know the game and what they want to do. These are not new players and therfore know exactly what to expect and how to use implants/remaps for most benefit already. If the new player is receiving advice from corpies then that advice should include and cover implants/remaps. The NPE experience should probably be enhanced to give more information to lone players such as I was but to be honest it just took a little thought to come to grips with the system.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#227 - 2014-12-23 14:46:36 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein

I think the post above addresses this well, but to add, the current system hurts newbies the most. The players that can afford replace these implants are richer, veteran players. So newbies who are already behind on skillpoints and will always be behind on skillpoints are left earning them at a lesser rate.


Newer players will allways be behind on *total* SP. Does that matter? Not one bit, they can always match a veteran player for total SP that are relevant in a given hull in time.

As for the points raised about CCP removing med clones because of SP loss this is entirely different. Players are not losing SP from not plugging implants in. You pay you subscription and are given the basic SP rate. You can enhance that above others by paying the price and taking a risk, just as you can enhance your isk/hr by paying for a blingy ship and putting it at risk.

Player A likes flying frigs in hisec and invests his money in +5's to learn faster. He caps out his frig skills faster than Player B in null earning much more isk than he is from combat anoms but after a marginally longer training time. Both players are putting isk at risk to a greater or lesser degree. The hisec guy has less risk on his implants but gets less in return for the SP he acrues.

Also so what if the hisec player gets SP faster? There is a natural limit on what a player can do in hisec governed by the ships you can fly and infrastructure you can own/build. Once you reach that limit what use is gaining the SP faster without going to null where they will be in the same position as others?

I like the differences between sec regions and the choices that those differences make players consider. Removing one of those choices because the null folks are jealous of those in hisec having the opportunity to gains skills faster would just be wrong.

As for this hurting new players more a new player is guaranteed to be overwhelmed with learning the interface and gameplay for the first 2-3 weeks. In that time all relevant skills for a small ships can be trained to level III/IV, I know because that's what I did and I was running in level IV missions in an incursus alongside a corpie who was showing me the ropes. Early skills are also low multiplier so take much less time to learn which reduces the difference between having +2's or +5's considerably.

Any player who needs the basic skills training any faster must already know the game and what they want to do. These are not new players and therfore know exactly what to expect and how to use implants/remaps for most benefit already. If the new player is receiving advice from corpies then that advice should include and cover implants/remaps. The NPE experience should probably be enhanced to give more information to lone players such as I was but to be honest it just took a little thought to come to grips with the system.



What you fail to factor is that the high sec player can simply move to null when he has the skills he wants.

Lets say both players are wanting to train and max out a carrier.
Now, there are several points to make towards this.

1) The high sec player will get that SP in significantly less time due to +5
2) The high sec player is also going to have much less isk lossed over time
3) The high sec player will have access to all goods at a much cheaper rate, so he'll be able to buy his skills, ships, fittings, ammo, etc. etc. etc. at a much cheaper rate.
4) Null is not always better than high sec. You spend a lot of time on roams that go nowhere, have to dock every time a non-blue comes in system, etc. etc. etc.
5) The high sec player can simply station trade in a much more lucrative and easier to manage market without taking near as much risks when transporting goods.

Sure, a player in null has the potential to make more isk, but in the case of most null players, it's not really all that profitable, especially once you factor isk lost and equipment purchased.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2014-12-23 15:12:28 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
... when a large portion of the game refuses to use such benefiting items currently due to cost inefficiency, I think that speaks volumes. ...


Yet a much larger proportion would say they are fine as is and the increased risk is a price you pay for going null and the benefits therein

I think the post above addresses this well, but to add, the current system hurts newbies the most. The players that can afford replace these implants are richer, veteran players. So newbies who are already behind on skillpoints and will always be behind on skillpoints are left earning them at a lesser rate.


Newer players will allways be behind on *total* SP. Does that matter? Not one bit, they can always match a veteran player for total SP that are relevant in a given hull in time.

As for the points raised about CCP removing med clones because of SP loss this is entirely different. Players are not losing SP from not plugging implants in. You pay you subscription and are given the basic SP rate. You can enhance that above others by paying the price and taking a risk, just as you can enhance your isk/hr by paying for a blingy ship and putting it at risk.

Player A likes flying frigs in hisec and invests his money in +5's to learn faster. He caps out his frig skills faster than Player B in null earning much more isk than he is from combat anoms but after a marginally longer training time. Both players are putting isk at risk to a greater or lesser degree. The hisec guy has less risk on his implants but gets less in return for the SP he acrues.

Also so what if the hisec player gets SP faster? There is a natural limit on what a player can do in hisec governed by the ships you can fly and infrastructure you can own/build. Once you reach that limit what use is gaining the SP faster without going to null where they will be in the same position as others?

I like the differences between sec regions and the choices that those differences make players consider. Removing one of those choices because the null folks are jealous of those in hisec having the opportunity to gains skills faster would just be wrong.

As for this hurting new players more a new player is guaranteed to be overwhelmed with learning the interface and gameplay for the first 2-3 weeks. In that time all relevant skills for a small ships can be trained to level III/IV, I know because that's what I did and I was running in level IV missions in an incursus alongside a corpie who was showing me the ropes. Early skills are also low multiplier so take much less time to learn which reduces the difference between having +2's or +5's considerably.

Any player who needs the basic skills training any faster must already know the game and what they want to do. These are not new players and therfore know exactly what to expect and how to use implants/remaps for most benefit already. If the new player is receiving advice from corpies then that advice should include and cover implants/remaps. The NPE experience should probably be enhanced to give more information to lone players such as I was but to be honest it just took a little thought to come to grips with the system.



What you fail to factor is that the high sec player can simply move to null when he has the skills he wants.

Lets say both players are wanting to train and max out a carrier.
Now, there are several points to make towards this.

1) The high sec player will get that SP in significantly less time due to +5
2) The high sec player is also going to have much less isk lossed over time
3) The high sec player will have access to all goods at a much cheaper rate, so he'll be able to buy his skills, ships, fittings, ammo, etc. etc. etc. at a much cheaper rate.
4) Null is not always better than high sec. You spend a lot of time on roams that go nowhere, have to dock every time a non-blue comes in system, etc. etc. etc.
5) The high sec player can simply station trade in a much more lucrative and easier to manage market without taking near as much risks when transporting goods.

Sure, a player in null has the potential to make more isk, but in the case of most null players, it's not really all that profitable, especially once you factor isk lost and equipment purchased.


Actually I do factor in that the hisec player can't move to null whenever they want and that's a good thing to get more people in null. If a player sits a character in hisec training carrier skills with +5's and not doing much else then they are earning no isk (unless trading and there's a limited set of skills that can be trained for that. If someone uses *anything* that makes them not undock then it is their own fault and they chose badly. There should be upsides and downsides to all areas of space and this is one example of that. The isk return from null for any like for like activity is always better than hisec and if a player isn't making enough isk they need to do something else for it or work as a team running sites to clear them more rapidly. 3-4 people run the site and split the rewards? Better than no rewards at all and you'll clear 4 sites more rapidly than each single player clearing a site each. I thought null was all about co-operation?

The key point is that the null player *does not lose SP* as people keep saying. They choose not to use implants that may increase SP because of the risk. If the null player docks up whenever a non-blue is in system where's the extra risk btw? And if you do that now without implants how would removing them change this?

Keep removing choices and we start to homogenize gameplay, more choice is always better especially when there are real consequences involved.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#229 - 2014-12-23 15:44:36 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


The key point is that the null player *does not lose SP* as people keep saying. They choose not to use implants that may increase SP because of the risk. If the null player docks up whenever a non-blue is in system where's the extra risk btw? And if you do that now without implants how would removing them change this?

Keep removing choices and we start to homogenize gameplay, more choice is always better especially when there are real consequences involved.


Lol, I love how people fish for this "does not lose SP".
You're training at a loss when compared to more secure players.
Loss is LOSS

Make sure you read those definitions.
Notice how it includes deprivation?

Now, back to the med clone example.

They were a choice of SP loss or isk loss, which CCP didn't agree with.

With learning implants it's SP generation loss, or isk loss.

Sure, you'll "gain" SP over time, but with med clones you would "gain" a save file essentially.


Again, with the med clone changes, CCP is stating that SP is tied to your subscription, and losing out on anything related to SP feels like a loss when that is what you're paying for.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#230 - 2014-12-23 15:59:25 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


The key point is that the null player *does not lose SP* as people keep saying. They choose not to use implants that may increase SP because of the risk. If the null player docks up whenever a non-blue is in system where's the extra risk btw? And if you do that now without implants how would removing them change this?

Keep removing choices and we start to homogenize gameplay, more choice is always better especially when there are real consequences involved.


Lol, I love how people fish for this "does not lose SP".
You're training at a loss when compared to more secure players.
Loss is LOSS

Make sure you read those definitions.
Notice how it includes deprivation?

Now, back to the med clone example.

They were a choice of SP loss or isk loss, which CCP didn't agree with.

With learning implants it's SP generation loss, or isk loss.

Sure, you'll "gain" SP over time, but with med clones you would "gain" a save file essentially.


Again, with the med clone changes, CCP is stating that SP is tied to your subscription, and losing out on anything related to SP feels like a loss when that is what you're paying for.


I read the definitions and stand by my point, no SP are removed from your account. Some players gain extra SP investing isk, just as some make more isk by investing isk in better ships. A pilot choosing to fly in null must accept the consequences of such. If a consequence is not using a subset of implants then so be it as they made their choice. Nobody forces a player to live in null. The player in null is not deprived of the implants, the option is still there to use them. Especially so if you dock up anytime a non-blue comes in system. If you choose to go to the wild west don't be surprised when you spend more time using your guns than in the classroom...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#231 - 2014-12-23 16:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


I read the definitions and stand by my point, no SP are removed from your account. Some players gain extra SP investing isk, just as some make more isk by investing isk in better ships. A pilot choosing to fly in null must accept the consequences of such. If a consequence is not using a subset of implants then so be it as they made their choice. Nobody forces a player to live in null. The player in null is not deprived of the implants, the option is still there to use them. Especially so if you dock up anytime a non-blue comes in system. If you choose to go to the wild west don't be surprised when you spend more time using your guns than in the classroom...



Yeah, I'm not sure why you would refuse an idea that is literally a win for every player in Eve...
Removal of attributes and anything effecting them, and instead going with a base training time for all players is a benefit to everyone.
It's a quality of life improvement.

Risk/reward should be left for things that actually effect the Eve Universe.
As CCP stated with, yet again, med clones,

Quote:
The same cannot be said for the current clone death mechanics. They are not a real choice, they are an illusion of choice. A choice between a bad option of losing ISK, and a worse option of losing skillpoints. A choice which does not affect the EVE universe as a whole, other than to empty players accounts of ISK and discourage the same interactions we want to foster.


Every argument that has been thrown out against the removal of attributes and effecting items can all be countered my comments made in this very dev blog.
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2014-12-23 17:11:14 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
...

Yeah, I'm not sure why you would refuse an idea that is literally a win for every player in Eve...
Removal of attributes and anything effecting them, and instead going with a base training time for all players is a benefit to everyone.
It's a quality of life improvement.

Risk/reward should be left for things that actually effect the Eve Universe.
As CCP stated with, yet again, med clones,

Quote:
The same cannot be said for the current clone death mechanics. They are not a real choice, they are an illusion of choice. A choice between a bad option of losing ISK, and a worse option of losing skillpoints. A choice which does not affect the EVE universe as a whole, other than to empty players accounts of ISK and discourage the same interactions we want to foster.


Every argument that has been thrown out against the removal of attributes and effecting items can all be countered my comments made in this very dev blog.


Its not a win for those who currently use and risk said implants for the benefits they give. Clearly it does affect the Eve universe. Are players not in the Eve universe? Are the implants not part of the loot tables and players defining choices?

I'm against the idea as SP/implants/attributes work fine as they are and I like them the way they are. I argue this case because for any decision to be made about such things both sides of the argument *should* be considered and debated for any meaningful choice to be made. The implants do not 'empty players wallets of isk' as they do not have to use them. The choices and consequences of using them are very real as are the consequences of remaps. Asking for the removal of a set of items because people choose not to use them in null is not very compelling as there are many more areas in space other then null.

Some may believe null is the most important but I believe *all* areas are important and should have distinctive characteristics in gameplay that set them apart. The use (or not) of certain implants is one of those differences. It could just as easily be argued that combat implants should be removed as they give an advantage to those that use them above those that can't afford , use, or risk them. These are usually the new players being used as the reason to remove the training implants.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#233 - 2014-12-23 23:55:02 UTC
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:


Its not a win for those who currently use and risk said implants for the benefits they give. Clearly it does affect the Eve universe. Are players not in the Eve universe? Are the implants not part of the loot tables and players defining choices?

I'm against the idea as SP/implants/attributes work fine as they are and I like them the way they are. I argue this case because for any decision to be made about such things both sides of the argument *should* be considered and debated for any meaningful choice to be made. The implants do not 'empty players wallets of isk' as they do not have to use them. The choices and consequences of using them are very real as are the consequences of remaps. Asking for the removal of a set of items because people choose not to use them in null is not very compelling as there are many more areas in space other then null.

Some may believe null is the most important but I believe *all* areas are important and should have distinctive characteristics in gameplay that set them apart. The use (or not) of certain implants is one of those differences. It could just as easily be argued that combat implants should be removed as they give an advantage to those that use them above those that can't afford , use, or risk them. These are usually the new players being used as the reason to remove the training implants.



I'm one of those that uses said implants for the benefits they give, but as i mentioned, I remain in high sec and put much less risks on these implants than a player in low/null/WH.
It effects the Eve Universe very little more than med clones did, and that is only because attribute implants are an item in Eve.
However, there are many items that have been removed from Eve that no one even thinks about anymore, and there have been far more detrimental changes made to Eve than what attribute removal would do.

As far as paragraph two of your argument. Saying that someone doesn't have to buy something is one thing.
Players didn't have to "empty their wallers of isk" when it came to med clones, but the would lose SP if they didn't.
Sure, players don't directly "lose" isk. To that I again say, loss of SP generation is still loss.
Right now you consider it as a choice. I'm sure there are players that considered losing isk or losing SP in the case of med clones was a choice, but as CCP stated, it's really more a case the illusion of choice.
In either case it amounts to loss. The only reason you're not considering the lack of use of implants as a loss is because they're a boosting item. Much like you're not losing DPS on your ship if you don't fit damage mods, but that again is just an illusion, as most people will laugh at you for not having any.

We can agree that all areas of the game are important and should be distinctive, however, the use of attribute implants is not a distinction; It's a barrier.
Now, since you mentioned skill implants, these are items in game that can directly and/or indirectly affect other players.
If we're both flying the same ship with the same skills and same fit, only I had skill implants, they would likely be the deciding factor on who wins, assuming you took piloting out of the equation.
The same cannot be said for attribute implants, as they don't really effect other players directly or indirectly. It's the skills that you've trained that effect them.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#234 - 2014-12-24 00:34:31 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
Its not a win for those who currently use and risk said implants for the benefits they give. Clearly it does affect the Eve universe. Are players not in the Eve universe? Are the implants not part of the loot tables and players defining choices?

It depends on what the "base" SP gain would be under such a new system. If it's the same as +5s right now, it is a gain for all, except learning implant traders of course. If it's +3 it's still a gain for a very large group of players. Majority or not I will not guess, but new players for sure.

Quote:
I'm against the idea as SP/implants/attributes work fine as they are and I like them the way they are. I argue this case because for any decision to be made about such things both sides of the argument *should* be considered and debated for any meaningful choice to be made. The implants do not 'empty players wallets of isk' as they do not have to use them. The choices and consequences of using them are very real as are the consequences of remaps. Asking for the removal of a set of items because people choose not to use them in null is not very compelling as there are many more areas in space other then null.

Null and WH. The same thing applies to PVP players in lowsec though, especially FW. There are enough smartbombers so losing your pod is inevitable if you PVP often. The thing with remaps is that everyone has the same amount of them. Your playstyle or amount of ISK or where you live does not define your opportunity to use a remap.

Quote:
Some may believe null is the most important but I believe *all* areas are important and should have distinctive characteristics in gameplay that set them apart. The use (or not) of certain implants is one of those differences. It could just as easily be argued that combat implants should be removed as they give an advantage to those that use them above those that can't afford , use, or risk them. These are usually the new players being used as the reason to remove the training implants.

I don't agree that SP should be part of this equation. The risk that comes from using expensive ships, implants or flying in more dangerous space is balanced by loss of ISK. The benefits are temporary and the losses can be fully replaced. The same is not true with SP loss from not using learning implants. The benefits are permanent and the loss cannot be replaced. You cannot buy a PLEX to replace the lost SP.

Please let's not argue semantics here. Whether it's "lost SP" or a "lack of additional SP gain", we're talking about the same thing.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Torsnk
Mustang Capital
#235 - 2014-12-24 00:57:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Torsnk
I -strongly- agree that learning implants need to be removed from the game. You can check out my argument against them on my previous forum thread from June.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
The difference in train time between +5s and +3s isn't really enough for me to justify paying more than a full set of +3 for a single +5.


Maybe not for you, but certainly for me. Let's do some math:

First, let's take a look at +5 implant SP/Time

-Best case (optimized attributes along with +5 implants): 45 SP/Min (extrapolated to 23,668,200 SP/year [365.25 days per year])
-Worst case (lowest possible attributes along with +5 implants): 33 SP/Min (extrapolated to 17,356,680 SP/year)

Second, let's look at +3 implant SP/Time:

-Best case (optimized attributes along with +3 implants): 42 SP/Min (extrapolated to 22,090,320 SP/year)
-Worst case (lowest possible attributes along with +3 implants): 30 SP/Min (extrapolated to 15,778,800 SP/year)

Third, let's compare the BEST case between +5s and +3s:

Best case SP/Year with +3s = 22,090,320 SP/year compared to 23,668,200 SP/year with w/ +5s. The difference between the two is 1,577,880 SP not gained by wearing +3s instead of +5s. That equates to more than 26 DAYS/year needed of training time to catch up at the rate produced with optimized attributes and +3 implants. And this is the BEST possible case between the two of them (i.e. the loss of SP as a result of implants is minimized by higher attribute points)

Fourth, let's compare the WORST case between +5s and +3s:

Worst case SP/year with +3 implants= 15,778,800 SP/year compared to 17,356,680 w/ +5s. In this case, the difference between the two is once again 1,577,880 SP. HOWEVER, in this instance the time to catch up at the +3 implant rate of 30 SP/Min is more than 36.5 days!

Summary: The actual amount of time that you ‘lose’ when acquiring SP will vary depending on your neural mapping. Worst case this lost time equals more than 36.5 days in a year, best case slightly more than 26 days, and for most players probably somewhere in between. Nonetheless, roughly a month of time is not a -trivial- amount in my opinion.


And yes...

I could undock in the +5s and lose a clone that is worth 2-10x (depending on what I'm flying) every time I want to PvP. But that isn't rational to me (and APPARENTLY to a LOT of other people judging by the number of contributions to this post) so I don't. Rather, I clone jump to PvP for a short time then jump back to my +5 clone to soak up the SP. The time I spend soaking up SP isn’t making anyone’s gaming experience better.

Remove learning implants from the game. The end.
Solaris Vex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2014-12-24 01:34:26 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:


Despite being a BRAVE pilot, I think the cheaper implants are very affordable even for people who live in null. The range of learning implants provide a good balance of risk vs reward. While high cost implants provide diminishing returns which also fits well with EVEs philosophy. I never fly with implants that would make me risk adverse, yet I can still afford always use a +3 and +2. Only the newest of newbros can't afford +1s, but those are so cheap that groups like E-Uni and Brave give them out for free.



Here's the problem with that mentality.

You're assuming that there is some sort of balancing factor built around these learning implants.
Well, there's not.

It's exactly the same as the way clones were, and CCP changed that.

However, there was never a dispute about clones when it came to Eve players.

i can't say that I've ever heard anyone say that having to pay for med clones was a bad thing.
We all treated it as a fear factor.
It's wasn't necessarily risk/reward when it came to med clones. We all treated is as a necessity for the same of feeling loss, much like when you lose a ship.
However, CCP changed this because of the fact that it made risk averse players even less risky, and made more strategic players risk averse as well, at least when it comes to losing pods.


Now, look at learning implants. There has always been a debate over learning implants.
Some say it's risk/reward and others say it's buffs for the wealthy and risk averse.

I personally agree with the later of the two.

See, i'm a high sec carebear, for the most part.
I roll around in +5s at all times, while doing what I generally enjoy.
I, on occasion, will jump clone and get some PVP done, but I never dedicate myself to PVP, or am willing to accept PVP at any time.
Now, the point of that is two things.

1) I prefer PVE content, so why do i get increased SP generation while doing what I enjoy, but a equally pitted player to me that enjoys PVP has to either reduce SP generation or take the risk of losing over 600mil isk?
Much like CCPs explanation on med clones, why should a player choose between the loss of isk or the loss of SP?
No, it's not LITERAL loss of SP, but reduced SP generation is loss.

2) I would not only get more involved with PVP if I didn't wear learning implants, but I also wouldn't care if CCP didn't refund me when they made the change. Even if I was getting reduced SP generation than I was with +5s, I would still be willing to take more risks. I'm at a point now where SP isn't really a big deal to me (over 54mil) and am capable of many things, but I still would rather train at what the game allows as max potential. I'm what you call an Optimalist. I am aware that I am not the greatest Pilot Eve has ever seen, but I want to be at my optimum potential. This means that i at least want my skills to be maxed out with a ship, despite my ability to pilot the ship.
Because of this, having my training capability at max potential is very important to me at all times.
This is what makes me more risk averse.
I don't have a problem losing a ship because i'm a crappy pilot, or losing a Pod; but I due take issue with losing SP generation.


I would also like to note that SP generation is much more important to players with low SP than it is to those of us with several million.
Due to this, players learn early on that SP is very important, which leads to higher amounts of risk averse players.


I don't really care if high sec carebears have slightly higher sp per hour. They're training different skills and doing different things.

But we could add something to give a sp/hour bonus for living in null/WH space that would compensate. Perhaps anomalys that give a short lived attribute boost to players who fly through them, but we shouldn't remove features that work fine for most people.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#237 - 2014-12-24 02:02:02 UTC
Solaris Vex wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:


Despite being a BRAVE pilot, I think the cheaper implants are very affordable even for people who live in null. The range of learning implants provide a good balance of risk vs reward. While high cost implants provide diminishing returns which also fits well with EVEs philosophy. I never fly with implants that would make me risk adverse, yet I can still afford always use a +3 and +2. Only the newest of newbros can't afford +1s, but those are so cheap that groups like E-Uni and Brave give them out for free.



Here's the problem with that mentality.

You're assuming that there is some sort of balancing factor built around these learning implants.
Well, there's not.

It's exactly the same as the way clones were, and CCP changed that.

However, there was never a dispute about clones when it came to Eve players.

i can't say that I've ever heard anyone say that having to pay for med clones was a bad thing.
We all treated it as a fear factor.
It's wasn't necessarily risk/reward when it came to med clones. We all treated is as a necessity for the same of feeling loss, much like when you lose a ship.
However, CCP changed this because of the fact that it made risk averse players even less risky, and made more strategic players risk averse as well, at least when it comes to losing pods.


Now, look at learning implants. There has always been a debate over learning implants.
Some say it's risk/reward and others say it's buffs for the wealthy and risk averse.

I personally agree with the later of the two.

See, i'm a high sec carebear, for the most part.
I roll around in +5s at all times, while doing what I generally enjoy.
I, on occasion, will jump clone and get some PVP done, but I never dedicate myself to PVP, or am willing to accept PVP at any time.
Now, the point of that is two things.

1) I prefer PVE content, so why do i get increased SP generation while doing what I enjoy, but a equally pitted player to me that enjoys PVP has to either reduce SP generation or take the risk of losing over 600mil isk?
Much like CCPs explanation on med clones, why should a player choose between the loss of isk or the loss of SP?
No, it's not LITERAL loss of SP, but reduced SP generation is loss.

2) I would not only get more involved with PVP if I didn't wear learning implants, but I also wouldn't care if CCP didn't refund me when they made the change. Even if I was getting reduced SP generation than I was with +5s, I would still be willing to take more risks. I'm at a point now where SP isn't really a big deal to me (over 54mil) and am capable of many things, but I still would rather train at what the game allows as max potential. I'm what you call an Optimalist. I am aware that I am not the greatest Pilot Eve has ever seen, but I want to be at my optimum potential. This means that i at least want my skills to be maxed out with a ship, despite my ability to pilot the ship.
Because of this, having my training capability at max potential is very important to me at all times.
This is what makes me more risk averse.
I don't have a problem losing a ship because i'm a crappy pilot, or losing a Pod; but I due take issue with losing SP generation.


I would also like to note that SP generation is much more important to players with low SP than it is to those of us with several million.
Due to this, players learn early on that SP is very important, which leads to higher amounts of risk averse players.


I don't really care if high sec carebears have slightly higher sp per hour. They're training different skills and doing different things.

But we could add something to give a sp/hour bonus for living in null/WH space that would compensate. Perhaps anomalys that give a short lived attribute boost to players who fly through them, but we shouldn't remove features that work fine for most people.


If you needed to add content in order to make up for the lost SP generation, why not just do exactly what i'm saying and balance everyone by removing attributes and effecting items?
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#238 - 2014-12-24 03:09:54 UTC
I guess where I want to throw my two cents:

On the topic of removing learning implants:

From what I can remember
+3's are roughly 10 mil each
+4's are about 20 mil
+5's are about 120 mil

Correct me if I'm wrong but afaik base-line stats before remap are 20/20/20/20/19

Grab a set of +1's for however much isk (a small amount to most, but not all - for some it might be quite substantial)
20 -> 21 : a 5% increase

Replace those with a set of +2's for a greater amount of isk
21 -> 22: a 4.7% increase

Again for +3's - this time around 40-50mil
22 -> 23: 4.5%

+4's - for 100mil
23 -> 24: 4.3%

+5's for half a bill
24 -> 25: 4.2%

So yeah, the more expensive the implant, the more you pay for a smaller proportional benefit.


The next thing I'll mention is (for some of you this will be apparent already) but training time is
Skill_Points_Required / Skill_Points_Per_Hour

Where the required SP is a set number and your SP per hour varies. So in a nut shell it looks something like this graph
http://www.freemathhelp.com/images/lessons/graph1.gif
The biggest change in training time comes from the initial increases in SP per hour
tl;dr

Learning implants have diminishing returns
EVE's pretty big on diminishing returns.



I guess also on the topic of how people living in low/null/wh's are incapable (or just unfeasible) of having the same SP/Hour as hi-sec residents due to higher chance of getting podded - you can still use a lower set of learning implants and retain most of the benefits (I fly around low in a set of +4's, also I'm aware that the lack of bubbles in lowsec is a huge difference between low/null+wh's)

If the loss in potential SP per hour is really that important to you... well, EVE is a sandbox and you can have whatever goals you want, but I just play to enjoy myself and get to learn the game - I don't worry over absolutely maximising sp per hour (remapped to give it a shot, working alright so far) or about grinding enough isk to plex my account each month.

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
Solaris Vex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2014-12-24 05:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Solaris Vex
Joe Risalo wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:


Despite being a BRAVE pilot, I think the cheaper implants are very affordable even for people who live in null. The range of learning implants provide a good balance of risk vs reward. While high cost implants provide diminishing returns which also fits well with EVEs philosophy. I never fly with implants that would make me risk adverse, yet I can still afford always use a +3 and +2. Only the newest of newbros can't afford +1s, but those are so cheap that groups like E-Uni and Brave give them out for free.



Here's the problem with that mentality.

You're assuming that there is some sort of balancing factor built around these learning implants.
Well, there's not.

It's exactly the same as the way clones were, and CCP changed that.

However, there was never a dispute about clones when it came to Eve players.

i can't say that I've ever heard anyone say that having to pay for med clones was a bad thing.
We all treated it as a fear factor.
It's wasn't necessarily risk/reward when it came to med clones. We all treated is as a necessity for the same of feeling loss, much like when you lose a ship.
However, CCP changed this because of the fact that it made risk averse players even less risky, and made more strategic players risk averse as well, at least when it comes to losing pods.


Now, look at learning implants. There has always been a debate over learning implants.
Some say it's risk/reward and others say it's buffs for the wealthy and risk averse.

I personally agree with the later of the two.

See, i'm a high sec carebear, for the most part.
I roll around in +5s at all times, while doing what I generally enjoy.
I, on occasion, will jump clone and get some PVP done, but I never dedicate myself to PVP, or am willing to accept PVP at any time.
Now, the point of that is two things.

1) I prefer PVE content, so why do i get increased SP generation while doing what I enjoy, but a equally pitted player to me that enjoys PVP has to either reduce SP generation or take the risk of losing over 600mil isk?
Much like CCPs explanation on med clones, why should a player choose between the loss of isk or the loss of SP?
No, it's not LITERAL loss of SP, but reduced SP generation is loss.

2) I would not only get more involved with PVP if I didn't wear learning implants, but I also wouldn't care if CCP didn't refund me when they made the change. Even if I was getting reduced SP generation than I was with +5s, I would still be willing to take more risks. I'm at a point now where SP isn't really a big deal to me (over 54mil) and am capable of many things, but I still would rather train at what the game allows as max potential. I'm what you call an Optimalist. I am aware that I am not the greatest Pilot Eve has ever seen, but I want to be at my optimum potential. This means that i at least want my skills to be maxed out with a ship, despite my ability to pilot the ship.
Because of this, having my training capability at max potential is very important to me at all times.
This is what makes me more risk averse.
I don't have a problem losing a ship because i'm a crappy pilot, or losing a Pod; but I due take issue with losing SP generation.


I would also like to note that SP generation is much more important to players with low SP than it is to those of us with several million.
Due to this, players learn early on that SP is very important, which leads to higher amounts of risk averse players.


I don't really care if high sec carebears have slightly higher sp per hour. They're training different skills and doing different things.

But we could add something to give a sp/hour bonus for living in null/WH space that would compensate. Perhaps anomalys that give a short lived attribute boost to players who fly through them, but we shouldn't remove features that work fine for most people.


If you needed to add content in order to make up for the lost SP generation, why not just do exactly what i'm saying and balance everyone by removing attributes and effecting items?


a: my idea rewards people who are undocked, which is good because more people in space = content
and
b: min maxing sp gain adds depth and complexity to the game, it rewards thinking ahead and making short term vs long term choices. And theres no rule that entities you to get 2700sp/hour.
Waltaratzor
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
#240 - 2014-12-24 05:55:37 UTC
Xindi Kraid wrote:
Here's a way of looking at things:

EvE is about choice right?
The HS miner needs to make different choices than the HS mission runner, and the LS pirate may not want or need the same things as the person living in null or W-space.

If there is a choice that is in EVERYONE'S best interest, and EVERYONE from that miner to that pirate, to that wormholer takes, what purpose does it really serve? Wouldn't it be better to focus efforts on stuff that will make a meaningful difference, that choosing actually changes the path you take on your eve career and lets you do new, and different things?


So the SP implant really isn't a meaningful choice for a competent high sec resident(you won't get podded often enough for it to matter), but the SP implants are a serious isk sink if you are doing null or WH PvP and die somewhat often.