These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Latest CSM notes : Rumours of attribute points/implants being removed.

First post First post
Author
Josef Djugashvilis
#521 - 2015-02-06 11:43:42 UTC
Dear Leannor, I am at a loss to understand your comment, - are you Irish?

Please wpuld you be so kind as to explain it.

Thank you.

This is not a signature.

Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#522 - 2015-02-06 12:00:14 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Dear Leannor, I am at a loss to understand your comment, - are you Irish?

Please wpuld you be so kind as to explain it.

Thank you.



he said treshold, not threshold (this was bolded in the quote). Like the way the irish sound like they;re saying 'tree' when they're actually saying 'three'. :)

(it was a tongue in cheek joke. ;-) )

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"

Josef Djugashvilis
#523 - 2015-02-06 12:56:27 UTC
Leannor wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Dear Leannor, I am at a loss to understand your comment, - are you Irish?

Please wpuld you be so kind as to explain it.

Thank you.



he said treshold, not threshold (this was bolded in the quote). Like the way the irish sound like they;re saying 'tree' when they're actually saying 'three'. :)

(it was a tongue in cheek joke. ;-) )


No problem Smile

This is not a signature.

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#524 - 2015-02-06 13:09:55 UTC
I will simply quote my past comment on the subject:

SOL Ranger wrote:

...I would like to keep the attributes and complexity from them as much as possible, albeit I'll admit there are some issues with the attributes.

Learning implants
I believe these should be removed, they are merely disguised learning skills.

Attribute change:
I believe attributes should not be manually assigned nor "reset", instead they should by the skills you train home in on those specific attributes it requires, so you become keen in those attribute areas needed over time and train faster.

We get:
Still takes time to change skill type training scheme.
Doesn't require any thought in to setting attributes.
No more magical sudden "resets".
No more risk in making a faulty attribute mapping.
No more waiting a year to fix a faulty attribute mapping.
Natural progression into whatever you fancy training.
Keeps same penalty for mixing training.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3575837#post3575837

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Renegade Heart
Doomheim
#525 - 2015-02-06 14:25:17 UTC
Keep all implants, and make corpses salvagable! More reasons to shoot at pods can't be a bad thing.
Solhild
Doomheim
#526 - 2015-02-06 14:52:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Solhild
Renegade Heart wrote:
Keep all implants, and make corpses salvagable! More reasons to shoot at pods can't be a bad thing.


Keep hardwiring implants and do this. Still get rid of learning implants and base attributes of course.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#527 - 2015-02-06 17:58:32 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If I am likely to lose the pod, I wear no hardwires and might have some learning implants in, by happenstance as there is a limit to how many jump clones one can have.

If there are no learning implants and only higher stats, I will wear no hardwires and just bank the ISK.


Great, but why? Can you explain your reasoning?


I'll answer the question, since I feel about the same, only I would probably wear cheap hardwires and maybe have a more expensive hardwire jump clone.

On my main and primary alt I run a set of +4s I would like to get to +5s once I feel I could afford them. I am only 6-7 months into the game and skill points are what open most new content for me. New ships to fly, new modules, new fits all come sooner with training implants.
But I am not rich so I don't want to risk my implants on a regular basis in risky behavior. So I got my rep with 2 corps up to 8 to use jump clones. Then I realized that I didn't want to be in a clone earning less SP for 19hrs minimum; just to enjoy my low/null/WH activities more.
I still go for pve, but less often than I would if I didn't have a set of 4s in. And when I do go I am much more paranoid and avoid as much risk as possible. Making my play time less enjoyable.

If there were no learning implants I would take more risks and I would be okay with having jump clones with hardwired skill implants that I might be locked out of for a day. But I don't feel the same way about being without learning implants. If I logout in a non learning clone then I have to log back in at some point just to jump back. Where as if there were no training implants it would not matter when I HAD to log back in next.

If there were no training implants I would mess around with cheap ships in PvP.

If there were no training implants I would spend more time in dangerous space enjoying the game instead of constantly looking over my shoulder.

Wanting to maximize my training progress has made me risk averse. I still take some risks, but I know if there was a change to let me maximize training without risk, I would be willing to take more risks.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#528 - 2015-02-06 18:20:43 UTC
Terra Chrall wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
If I am likely to lose the pod, I wear no hardwires and might have some learning implants in, by happenstance as there is a limit to how many jump clones one can have.

If there are no learning implants and only higher stats, I will wear no hardwires and just bank the ISK.


Great, but why? Can you explain your reasoning?


I'll answer the question, since I feel about the same, only I would probably wear cheap hardwires and maybe have a more expensive hardwire jump clone.

On my main and primary alt I run a set of +4s I would like to get to +5s once I feel I could afford them. I am only 6-7 months into the game and skill points are what open most new content for me. New ships to fly, new modules, new fits all come sooner with training implants.
But I am not rich so I don't want to risk my implants on a regular basis in risky behavior. So I got my rep with 2 corps up to 8 to use jump clones. Then I realized that I didn't want to be in a clone earning less SP for 19hrs minimum; just to enjoy my low/null/WH activities more.
I still go for pve, but less often than I would if I didn't have a set of 4s in. And when I do go I am much more paranoid and avoid as much risk as possible. Making my play time less enjoyable.

If there were no learning implants I would take more risks and I would be okay with having jump clones with hardwired skill implants that I might be locked out of for a day. But I don't feel the same way about being without learning implants. If I logout in a non learning clone then I have to log back in at some point just to jump back. Where as if there were no training implants it would not matter when I HAD to log back in next.

If there were no training implants I would mess around with cheap ships in PvP.

If there were no training implants I would spend more time in dangerous space enjoying the game instead of constantly looking over my shoulder.

Wanting to maximize my training progress has made me risk averse. I still take some risks, but I know if there was a change to let me maximize training without risk, I would be willing to take more risks.



The solution you are looking for is in your own reply. Jump clones but a cheap +2 or +3 implants in it and you lose 6480sp a day for a set of +2's. Which is no difference at all.

Also Low sec is safe for pods if you know the area(dont warp to the Osoggur gate when in amamake and places like rancer) aka the lightly spots to see smart bombs
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#529 - 2015-02-06 19:07:01 UTC
Lady Rift wrote:



The solution you are looking for is in your own reply. Jump clones but a cheap +2 or +3 implants in it and you lose 6480sp a day for a set of +2's. Which is no difference at all.

Also Low sec is safe for pods if you know the area(dont warp to the Osoggur gate when in amamake and places like rancer) aka the lightly spots to see smart bombs


I understand jump clones are a partial solution, which is why I trained and repped up for it. And if the choice was no or low bonuses to training vs the current system I would keep it the same without changing it. I'll go the route or a +2/3 clone if I want to get into risky behavior more often. The down side is for those, like me, that are risk averse by nature this hinders spontaneity of risky behavior, having to worry about jump clone timer and location of clone.

If there were no training implants, or if they were cheap, I would run around most the time in a disposable clone vs one worth 100-500m. Where as now I run around in the expensive one to maximize SP and have to live with my risk aversion.

But if they were removed and all skill training was balanced around +4/+5 then I would play the game differently and I think I would enjoy it more.

Or if the price of +4/5 were reduced to what +2/+3 are now, that would be enough to augment my play style and get me into more of the game content on a regular basis.
Memphis Baas
#530 - 2015-02-06 19:19:08 UTC
You're using logic to argue against the way he FEELS. The OCD about implants is a psychological thing; makes no sense but there it is.

It's probably a lot easier for CCP to put out a dev blog (everyone reads dev blogs) with some statistics and pretty charts to drive home the point that there's almost no difference between +2's and +4's. Add Rancer and Amamake to everyone's avoidance list, like Jita is. But they haven't even considered that. Instead they're proposing Pavlovian manipulation of our behavior (remove implants -> we PVP more), and coding a whole bunch of changes to the skill system in order to implement it.

People put a lot of irrational value on their skill points. Remember how everyone raced for Destroyer 5 and Battlecruiser 5 in order to gain free skill points when CCP split those into the 4 racial skills? Some even re-subscribed just to make sure they had the skills ready. Are they flying destroyers or battlecruisers now, more than before? Unlikely; so training for Destroyer 5 and BC 5 made no logical sense. Yet CCP got surprise income out of a change to some skills that was done just for balancing purposes.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#531 - 2015-02-06 20:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Darwin
Memphis Baas wrote:
Instead they're proposing Pavlovian manipulation of our behavior (remove implants -> we PVP more), and coding a whole bunch of changes to the skill system in order to implement it.


Again, leading off with the caveat that I'm not a designer on the team discussing this, so forgive me if I can't speak for them on specifics:

You're assuming a motivation which hasn't been stated, and, to my knowledge, isn't necessarily the case.

I could imagine an argument for simplifying the skill & attribute system to make it easier to learn for new players, or to reduce the cumulative impact on players who learn about the relevant game mechanics later than all their friends (and thus potentially loses months of training compared to learning earlier.) I could also imagine simplification being very helpful for technical reasons. And, of course, the CSM minutes did state that a major developer concern was that the current system forces people to learn skills in a less-useful order if they want to optimize for SP/hour.

Any set of changes that they end up proposing would likely take into account economic impacts, impacts on the subjective degree of risk involved in the average pod loss, and a need to keep implant-related gameplay interesting. It's unlikely that something like learning implants would be removed without something else added to keep pods interesting.

It's easy to argue against a strawman ("I think they're doing this for reason X, and that's stupid because..."). I'd suggest that you try to broaden your thinking a bit about why someone might see such a change as a positive, and what such a change might look like, before you give feedback on something that's not even fully-formed enough to roll out in a dev blog yet.

I often see people asking "Why don't we get to hear about future changes to the game early, when they're still being considered, instead of right before they happen?" This is an instance where you have heard about something that's far enough out that even the game designers aren't sure what they want to propose yet.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Machagon
Amamake Anarchist Community College
#532 - 2015-02-06 21:11:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Machagon
Thank you CCP Darwin. There's so much talk about "dumbing down" and "noob friendliness" that I sometimes think that people on this forum think that the secret to good game design is just adding more features when, in fact, it is often the opposite.

The removal of learning skills was a huge plus. The removal of permanent race-based attributes was a huge plus. The truth is that the attribute system was a bad feature from the point of conception. People in this thread are talking about not PVPing in learning implants, or not training skills outside your remap, as though these are just irrelevant bad feels. But these bad feels stem from a very real game design flaw. Both learning implants and remaps create a perverse incentive where the most fun thing to do and the most efficient thing to do are at direct odds.

This is not the good-complexity creating risk vs. reward. This is just a system with no purpose other than to cause bad feels (and the occasional shadenfreude good feels in people who look down on the bad feels people).

I am 100% for removing base attributes (so you always train as though you had an optimal remap), and almost 100% in favour of removing learning implants. My only slight reservation is that I wouldn't want to remove the pirate sets and they would definitely need a rebalance and/or availability bump if they were the only uses for slots 1 to 5.

I've also noticed a few people talking about removing hardwirings. I don't think that's a good idea and I also don't think it was ever really on the table. Hardwirings directly interact with what you are doing at the moment. You plug them in to use them proactively. They provide an opportunity to get a vital tiny edge in a fight in exchange for an up front investment and an increased risk if you lose your pod. This is exactly the good sort of risk vs. reward that makes EVE great and the sort of complexity we should maintain while cutting away the cruft.
Terra Chrall
Doomheim
#533 - 2015-02-06 22:19:03 UTC
Machagon wrote:
Thank you CCP Darwin. There's so much talk about "dumbing down" and "noob friendliness" that I sometimes think that people on this forum think that the secret to good game design is just adding more features when, in fact, it is often the opposite.

The removal of learning skills was a huge plus. The removal of permanent race-based attributes was a huge plus. The truth is that the attribute system was a bad feature from the point of conception. People in this thread are talking about not PVPing in learning implants, or not training skills outside your remap, as though these are just irrelevant bad feels. But these bad feels stem from a very real game design flaw. Both learning implants and remaps create a perverse incentive where the most fun thing to do and the most efficient thing to do are at direct odds.

This is not the good-complexity creating risk vs. reward. This is just a system with no purpose other than to cause bad feels (and the occasional shadenfreude good feels in people who look down on the bad feels people).

I am 100% for removing base attributes (so you always train as though you had an optimal remap), and almost 100% in favour of removing learning implants. My only slight reservation is that I wouldn't want to remove the pirate sets and they would definitely need a rebalance and/or availability dump if they were the only uses for slots 1 to 5.

I've also noticed a few people talking about removing hardwirings. I don't think that's a good idea and I also don't think it was ever really on the table. Hardwirings directly interact with what you are doing at the moment. You plug them in to use them proactively. They provide an opportunity to get a vital tiny edge in a fight in exchange for an up front investment and an increased risk if you lose your pod. This is exactly the good sort of risk vs. reward that makes EVE great and the sort of complexity we should maintain while cutting away the cruft.

Well said.

I had been focused on just the implants. But taking into account the whole attribute/learning system, removing it would not take much away from the game. It greatly favors the informed over the uninformed making training into various skills much more time consuming for some.

Should that be a part of the game that is kept? As a relatively new player I could do with out it. I like the idea of changing the system, not to make things easy mode, or dumbed down, but for the sake of opening up game play. By being able to train any skill maximally, it allows players the freedom to shift between areas of interest on the fly and stop training for that new ship and get into leadership, or logistics simply by putting the relevant skills at the top of the queue. Then the decisions about skills are about skills and not about how are my attributes are set for the next year.

If an attribute system with remaps is kept, I would propose this simple (not saying easy) solution for getting out of a bad remap. Have a free attribute reset (+1) for every remap you have. So even if you have no remaps left, you can always reset to the standard default set. This would also open up the use of a years remaps for shorter term trains without a penalty for moving away from that focus the rest of the year. And give new players more confidence to play with the system on their own, knowing they can reset without burning a bonus remap.

I don't think the system is broken, as it is a system with pros and cons, but I agree with Machagon in that it seems flawed. This is a sandbox universe and I would prefer a more flexible learning system that encouraged trying new and different things by way of training any skill in a timely way.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#534 - 2015-02-06 22:49:00 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Memphis Baas wrote:
Instead they're proposing Pavlovian manipulation of our behavior (remove implants -> we PVP more), and coding a whole bunch of changes to the skill system in order to implement it.


Again, leading off with the caveat that I'm not a designer on the team discussing this, so forgive me if I can't speak for them on specifics:

You're assuming a motivation which hasn't been stated, and, to my knowledge, isn't necessarily the case.

I could imagine an argument for simplifying the skill & attribute system to make it easier to learn for new players, or to reduce the cumulative impact on players who learns about the relevant game mechanics later than all their friends (and thus potentially loses months of training compared to learning earlier.) I could also imagine simplification being very helpful for technical reasons. And, of course, the CSM minutes did state that a major developer concern was that the current system forces people to learn skills in a less-useful order if they want to optimize for SP/hour.

Any set of changes that they end up proposing would likely take into account economic impacts, impacts on the subjective degree of risk involved in the average pod loss, and a need to keep implant-related gameplay interesting. It's unlikely that something like learning implants would be removed without something else added to keep pods interesting.

It's easy to argue against a strawman ("I think they're doing this for reason X, and that's stupid because..."). I'd suggest that you try to broaden your thinking a bit about why someone might see such a change as a positive, and what such a change might look like, before you give feedback on something that's not even fully-formed enough to roll out in a dev blog yet.

I often see people asking "Why don't we get to hear about future changes to the game early, when they're still being considered, instead of right before they happen?" This is an instance where you have heard about something that's far enough out that even the game designers aren't sure what they want to propose yet.


We have theorycrafted this out for years now. My best advice is to make damn sure you guys get a good replacement for what is essentially the LP floor of EVE.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#535 - 2015-02-07 00:29:17 UTC
Aryth wrote:
We have theorycrafted this out for years now. My best advice is to make damn sure you guys get a good replacement for what is essentially the LP floor of EVE.

I can't comment on what their current thinking is, but I do know that Team Size Matters are absolutely aware of and thinking about the potential economic impacts of any changes.

CCP Darwin  •  Senior Software Engineer, Art & Graphics, EVE Online  •  @mark_wilkins

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2015-02-07 06:38:08 UTC
Ya I wouldn't be a fan of losing implants. This is an element of Risk to the game.

The argument that implants are what keeps people from PvPing is silly at best. If you want to make it easier, then just lower the standings needed for JC's, or make it so you can always make a JC from your original school.. There.. done.

I mean why shouldn't I be able to train faster? I Trained the Cybernetics skill. I Paid for my implants, and optimized a skill plan. And I take a risk EVERY time I undock that I could get podded. Even in Highsec. Done implants and remaps can save weeks and months off long term goals.. And it's a choice we should be free to make. I learned this stuff fast. Why do we need to spoon feed everything to a new player? I'm not saying Eve needs to be a learning.. wall. But You get implants in the Tutorials.. YOU GET THEM. And while using them offers some advantage, it's not the Huge advantage you get from knowing specific skills to train, or remapping, or knowing tactics, etc.

Saying that those implants are the reason, well as was mentioned before.. Lets remove expensive ships, and ammo's, and modules. Lets just have Eve be just T1 Frigs and Meta0 modules.. No.

Personally I wasn't a huge fan of the change of Med Clones. That was an element of the game that needed to be Fixed, but didn't need to be nuked. It's not the end of the world, but it's one less risk/reward. How many times did DBRB loose Fleet 5 cause he forgot to update his clone?


I'm all for helping a new player learn the game. That's a good thing. Better tutorials, better training missions. Tool tips.. All Great. But we don't need to dumb down the game too. Eve is a Complex Game. It's why I play it.
Ashterothi
The Order of Thelemic Ascension
The Invited
#537 - 2015-02-07 07:14:16 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
people accept risk in this pvp centric MMO where consequences can be harsh?


I'm not on the team that brought this question up with the CSM, but I do have a question for you.

If your practice, normally, is to spend, say, 50 million ISK for a pod full of implants today, why would that not be your practice tomorrow, if learning implants were to be removed?

Wouldn't you just spend your money on hardwirings instead, and maybe get an even larger edge in combat?

Or, is your concern that learning implants would be viewed by the average player as inherently more valuable than non-learning-implants, so their willingness to spend on their pod decreases?

I ask because it's not evident to me that making skill training speed independent of implants will somehow reduce the overall average value of a pod, or the average risk that a player is willing to take on its contents.


Although I haven't had time to read this full post let me offer some thoughts.

Implants are a long term investment whereas hardwirings is a short term investment.

Esp if you remove mappings (Which many people do in their calculations) then Implants represent a significant way for someone to risk for long term gain. That is very important.

IF Attributes were removed, it would be the same as if remaps were removed. If attributes are removed all you remove is the option to put that little bit of effort and planning into your character. If implants are removed, you lose the ability to add additional risk for long term permanent value (Higher SP totals).

Clone grades were removed to remove a non-choice. You had to upgrade your clone. However remaps and implants are real choice based on effort and risk. In that sense they improve the depth of the game, and ultimately the player who chooses to ignore them isn't that far put out. So no, I wouldn't say people would just shift that 50mil isk to hardwires, because it is a totally different value decision.
Solhild
Doomheim
#538 - 2015-02-07 07:44:41 UTC
If you get rid of base attributes and learning implants then new possibilities arise.
People currently argue against reassigning trained skill points because they could have been learned at a lower rate owing to attributes.

This opens the door to an annual skill remap which means that players could deconstruct unwanted skills and load them into a new area ready for another year invested in the game. That would definitely be an improvement.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#539 - 2015-02-07 11:58:32 UTC
Solhild wrote:
This opens the door to an annual skill remap which means that players could deconstruct unwanted skills and load them into a new area ready for another year invested in the game. That would definitely be an improvement.

I don't like the word "year" here. Most non mmo have 20-30 hour lifespan playing time. If new players don't be hooked then they won't be playing long enough to use this feature.
CCP Darwin wrote:
I could imagine an argument for simplifying the skill & attribute system to make it easier to learn for new players, or to reduce the cumulative impact on players who learn about the relevant game mechanics later than all their friends (and thus potentially loses months of training compared to learning earlier.) I could also imagine simplification being very helpful for technical reasons. And, of course, the CSM minutes did state that a major developer concern was that the current system forces people to learn skills in a less-useful order if they want to optimize for SP/hour.

Any set of changes that they end up proposing would likely take into account economic impacts, impacts on the subjective degree of risk involved in the average pod loss, and a need to keep implant-related gameplay interesting. It's unlikely that something like learning implants would be removed without something else added to keep pods interesting.

It's easy to argue against a strawman ("I think they're doing this for reason X, and that's stupid because..."). I'd suggest that you try to broaden your thinking a bit about why someone might see such a change as a positive, and what such a change might look like, before you give feedback on something that's not even fully-formed enough to roll out in a dev blog yet.

I often see people asking "Why don't we get to hear about future changes to the game early, when they're still being considered, instead of right before they happen?" This is an instance where you have heard about something that's far enough out that even the game designers aren't sure what they want to propose yet.

This is GD thread i think everyone are aware it's not feedback, just posting personal opinions about implants and learning in-game.

I don't like current mechanism. Remaps are useless to me. I don't play this game to build training plans for a year long period. I don't like choosing "to be or not to be" for a year long period if i want to speed up learning. I would like one remap per 30 days (for a price ofc), if learning implants are going to be removed ( i would still have influence on my clone that way).

What option to train do we have now?
1) attributes remap - not necessary a good thing, if we change mind after few months ("ye maybe this whole mining is not my thing");
2) buy learning implants - cost much, easy to lose them ("guys let's go shoot something -no, we station spinning for >20 days of training")
3) buy skills hardwires - why train to lvl 5 when i can buy +5% skill implant ("wait, wait, same cost of +5 learning if we lose them, decisions, decisions)
4) combination of all above ("never undock, i have no idea what to do in this game")
5) don't give a s*** about it and just play the game.

I think it's going into removing attributes, remaps and learning implants direction. If players won't have the choices they won't choose wrong (i think it was in a movie i saw few months ago).

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Francis Inch
Kador Defence Initiative
#540 - 2015-02-07 12:17:04 UTC
Removing Learning implants would be great for my EVE experience. The decision between what level of learning increase I want vs the value of the pod I might lose keeps me clone jumping between high sec for training and low/null for combat.

It means I participate less and that I have to actively manage my jump clones far more not to play the game, but to avoid slower skill training.