These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#661 - 2015-02-12 21:18:08 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
The current concept represented in the game today might be better if attributes mapped more cleanly to functional roles in EVE, but remember that even taking attributes out entirely and having a flat skill training speed wouldn't remove that choice of how to specialize. You still would have to train skills in an order that gets you somewhere you want to be, and the most efficient way to do that would be to train for the thing you'd like to do.

Instead of how fast i'll train my skills i'll have choice in what order i will train them. Same thing i have now with no implants pluged.
CCP Darwin wrote:
Note that learning implants provide greater reasons for risk-averse behavior than types that provide benefit for ship pilots. If you want to incentivize players risking valuable implants, the best you can do are implants that directly improve the experience of undocking in your ship. The worst you can do are implants that are just as effective even when you're logged-off.

Contradiction. "I won't undock with leanring implants but undock with hardwires".
Just because i have no choices now doesn't mean whole system is wrong. Look at implants first.
Simplest solution would be to remap learning implants with core skills like CPU or PG bonuses and bonuses to attributes.

I have choice now. Plug learning implants and learn skill to lvl V or plug hardwire that give me bonus to my lvl 4 skill.

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

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#662 - 2015-02-12 21:22:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Sort of wrong. Before you can risk PVP implants, you have to forego learning implants. On top of the loss aversion factor, not having learning implants active is loss in itself. By plugging in PVP implants at all, you're already missing out on a potential degree of SP accumulation.

Using PVP implants is the same opportunity cost of losing a clone full of learning implants. Aside from CA-s, but they're a lot of ISK for wishy-washy half-PVP, half-learning implants. And they're limited issue.
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#663 - 2015-02-12 21:32:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Darwin
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Instead of how fast i'll train my skills i'll have choice in what order i will train them. Same thing i have now with no implants pluged.

Yes, that's why this change is being proposed, to simplify the skill training system by removing a part that adds little meaningful choice to the game.

Quote:
Contradiction. "I won't undock with leanring implants but undock with hardwires".


Sniper Smith wrote:
Removing Learning Implants or Attributes will not make anyone more willing to lose a valuable pod. I mean sure, 5 people maybe, but no real numbers. You think you take away my +5's I'm gonna get a set of Snakes and head to low? Nope.


The point is that removing learning implants would have a few effects:

1) The slots would be freed up for something else.

2) New implants would possibly be introduced for those slots that provided benefits while flying in space.

3) Players would be saving the money they currently spent on learning implants, and thus have it newly free to spend elsewhere.

Someone who has a 90 million ISK +3 training clone might only need to have a 15 million ISK new clone to entirely replace the +3s in the implant economy, if the implants in that 15 million ISK clone incentivize flying with it enough to lose 6 pods for every 1 before.

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

Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#664 - 2015-02-12 21:33:28 UTC
Another example why the current system is not good:

- I examine every skill available to me and set up a plan.
- I only need support skills for the next one year of play time, so I remap to Int-Mem
- Two months after I respec, CCP announces a completely new game mechanic, t3 tactical destroyers.
- These things look AWESOME and I really want to fly one as soon as possible.
- Because I planned out an int-mem remap for one year with all available information at the time, I now take twice as long to get into a t3 tactical destroyer than other players who happened to be remapped properly already.

How is the above logical in the "risk vs reward" scenario?

As CCP continues to release and modify content, the environment of Eve continues to change. Locking players for one year into a "bad" remap means that they take twice as long to train a few missing skills for new content and forces them to take a net "sp loss" in order to do so.

As mentioned before, Attribute implants should be released with consumables for pve type gameplay and/or implants that specifically benefit undocked ships. If there was a 1 hour booster increasing damage against sansha by 10%, you could bet that most mission runners and ratters in that space would stockpile the stuff.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#665 - 2015-02-12 21:37:32 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
CCP Darwin wrote:
Rain6637 wrote:
I want to agree with you unequivocally, but why is such pragmatic logic applied to this situation, when there's another issue that is just as blatant and uncomfortable, and is not being considered for reform?

To be honest, I have no idea what plans or thoughts the EVE game design team have for the future of the skill tree itself, but I can assure you that just because a thing isn't in the CSM minutes doesn't mean it's immune from scrutiny.

If you have a specific suggestion (particularly one that doesn't shorten total training time for T2 ships) for making prerequisites feel more natural, I'd consider making it in the Features and Ideas Discussion forum so the game designers can read it.


It is very heartening to see That CCP are looking at even the most embedded systems in the game, and not following the "it always has been therefore it always will be attitude"

Resolving issues with old mechanics sometimes is best achieved by looking at what one wishes to achieve from the training system, and not trying to tweak a system riddled with inconsistancies, and choices that applied to a game, that was very different when originally introduced.

Whilst some players, may be upset, by the reduction in their killboard values when popping Pods, and some will be aggrieved that they have lost the percieved advantage over new players, doing what is right for the game, and what is right for the wide playerbase should take priority, after all an old and experienced player always has the advantages that come with that still.


I look forward with great interest as to where this ends up, and I would like to point out, that if licences apply to hardwires, and they are not destroyed on ship/pod loss, firstly, Let the implants show as a value forcibly and violently unplugged, even though actually not lost, to satisfy people keeping score. And for those who complain about how it is not hardcore enough, and all the usual comments. Losing one's ship, ones fittings, modules, weapons, and ones cargo, together with losing the fight, and being relocated far away from the action, is quite sufficient,

Unless the intention is to punish people for even daring to fight!?
Time to undo that attitude and get people out there!

Good luck. Loving the new EVE attitude.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#666 - 2015-02-12 21:43:52 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:


3) Players would be saving the money they currently spent on learning implants, and thus have it newly free to spend elsewhere.

Someone who has a 90 million ISK +3 training clone might only need to have a 15 million ISK new clone to entirely replace the +3s in the implant economy, if the implants in that 15 million ISK clone incentivize flying with it enough to lose 6 pods for every 1 before.


Change every incidence of "Clone", "Implant", and "Pod" for "Ship".

Sad
CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#667 - 2015-02-12 21:51:36 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Change every incidence of "Clone", "Implant", and "Pod" for "Ship".

Sad


If implants for slots 1-5 provided the same quality of benefit as spending that learning implant money on a somewhat more expensive ship would, why wouldn't implants be the smarter choice? After all, implants often survive multiple ship deaths, even in null.

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

Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#668 - 2015-02-12 22:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sniper Smith
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Removing Learning Implants or Attributes will not make anyone more willing to lose a valuable pod. I mean sure, 5 people maybe, but no real numbers. You think you take away my +5's I'm gonna get a set of Snakes and head to low? Nope.


The point is that removing learning implants would have a few effects:

1) The slots would be freed up for something else.

2) New implants would possibly be introduced for those slots that provided benefits while flying in space.

3) Players would be saving the money they currently spent on learning implants, and thus have it newly free to spend elsewhere.

Someone who has a 90 million ISK +3 training clone might only need to have a 15 million ISK new clone to entirely replace the +3s in the implant economy, if the implants in that 15 million ISK clone incentivize flying with it enough to lose 6 pods for every 1 before.

These slots already have implants available that go beyond learning. The Geno's, and the pirate implants. I doubt much more will be added, as virtially all other attributes are already sorted out into the normal hardwire slots. I can't see CCP adding more implants for Damage, or anything up there.

Saving money? So rather than learning implants (of which you only require 2 at a time) now you are going to spend them on new hardwires? So what's the difference? Only now I can't learn faster by risking more?

Nothing Requires you have learning implants. The benefit to having them is actually fairly small unless you have a long plan and use them right. But now you would be punishing those of us who took the time to make the plan, or just as bad, giving everyone else who doesn't think ahead, a bonus to their training.

Learning Implants don't double your speed, we are taking about what for most is just days saved over a year.


And as I said, want to incentivise PVP? Give people Jumpclones Day ONE. You make people grind for ages to be able to make JC's at a station, or join corps with Outposts, Titan's, or Rorq's. Give people a clean clone early on. That way they can have their Learning Implant clone, AND one to fight with without grinding for it. We have people that do that for the newbies in CAS already, and lots of them get their second clone, and them head out for PVP. Now they have one with nothing to lose.
Even if you remove the learning implants, they are going to get normal hardiwres, thus still, the clone will be more than they want to risk losing.
Memphis Baas
#669 - 2015-02-12 22:24:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
Sniper Smith wrote:

Nothing Requires you have learning implants. [...] But now you would be punishing those of us who took the time to make the plan, or just as bad, giving everyone else who doesn't think ahead, a bonus to their training.
[...]
As I said, want to incentivise PVP? Give people Jumpclones Day ONE.

I'm sorry, but giving people jump clones on day 1 would be punishing those of us who took the time to grind the standings, or join Estel for 1 day, or, in his case, establish his "free clones" service as a corporation and advertise it. Why should those who don't think ahead about standings benefit in any way?

Going by that reasoning, CCP should remove the Newbie Questions forum, because it's full of guides and advice for those who don't think ahead or can't figure out stuff on their own, and that's unfair to you, me, and the vets. It reduces this "thinking ahead" effort to just typing 48 characters (mindlessly): "What implants should I put in for skill plan x?" and the forum immediately blurts out advice, guides, and links to youtube videos.
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#670 - 2015-02-12 22:30:24 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Want to incentivise PVP? Give people Jumpclones Day ONE.

I'm sorry, but giving people jump clones on day 1 would be punishing those of us who took the time to grind the standings, or join Estel for 1 day, or, in his case, establish his "free clones" service as a corporation and advertise it. Why should those who don't think ahead about standings benefit in any way?

Going by that reasoning, CCP should remove the Newbie Questions forum, because it's full of guides and advice for those who don't think ahead or can't figure out stuff on their own, and that's unfair to you, me, and the vets. It reduces this "thinking ahead" effort to just typing 48 characters (mindlessly): "What implants should I put in for skill plan x?" and the forum immediately blurts out advice, guides, and links to youtube videos.


hahahahah wow, this is dumb

You are literally saying "Don't make this improvement to the game because we had to do it the hard way, so everyone else should".

Go back to grinding level 4 missions because you have no concept of how this game functions.
MainDrain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#671 - 2015-02-12 22:31:46 UTC
This post in inspired by a recent reddit thread

In it, it is suggested that we could do away with the standard attribute remapping system and instead use a grouped learning implant.

An implant for Gunnery could be broken down into the following, with the associated boost to training.

-Gunnery + 1%
-Hybrid Gunnery Implant +3%
-Projectile Gunnery Implant +3%

These basic implants would provide no boost to the skills effect (no hardwiring style bonus)

Advanced implants

Advanced Railgun Gunnery Implant + 5% to skill training +3% to damage/ROF of all railguns
Advanced Blaster Gunnery Implant + 5% to skill training +3% to damage/ROF of all blasters

Similar would exist for projectile and all missile variants

The original reddit comment suggested faction implants, a Fed Navy Cadet was the idea suggested.

His original idea would be that this would provide implants of a certain level to a mixed selection of skills. Gallente Frigate, small hybrids and fitting skills – light drones would fit perfectly here.

Again the basic level of this implant would provide less of a bonus, with more advanced (and expensive) versions providing greater boosts.

Higher ranks than cadet could be used for destroyer, cruiser, BC, BS etc etc.

This suggestion would provide both a learning and combat boost to pilots, fit perfectly with lore (you would buy implants that specifically impact how you want to fight and fly). I feel it would also encourage more people to engage in PVP, much in the same way that removing the clone upgrade/sp loss penalty has.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#672 - 2015-02-12 22:33:04 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Sniper Smith wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Removing Learning Implants or Attributes will not make anyone more willing to lose a valuable pod. I mean sure, 5 people maybe, but no real numbers. You think you take away my +5's I'm gonna get a set of Snakes and head to low? Nope.


The point is that removing learning implants would have a few effects:

1) The slots would be freed up for something else.

2) New implants would possibly be introduced for those slots that provided benefits while flying in space.

3) Players would be saving the money they currently spent on learning implants, and thus have it newly free to spend elsewhere.

Someone who has a 90 million ISK +3 training clone might only need to have a 15 million ISK new clone to entirely replace the +3s in the implant economy, if the implants in that 15 million ISK clone incentivize flying with it enough to lose 6 pods for every 1 before.

These slots already have implants available that go beyond learning. The Geno's, and the pirate implants. I doubt weather much more will be added, as virtially all other attributes are already sorted out into the normal hardwire slots. I can't see CCP adding more implants for Damage, or anything up there.

Saving money? So rather than learning implants (of which you only require 2 at a time) now you are going to spend them on new hardwires? So what's the difference? Only now I can't learn faster by risking more?

Nothing Requires you have learning implants. The benefit to having them is actually fairly small unless you have a long plan and use them right. But now you would be punishing those of us who took the time to make the plan, or just as bad, giving everyone else who doesn't think ahead, a bonus to their training.

Learning Implants don't double your speed, we are taking about what for most is just days saved over a year.


And as I said, want to incentivise PVP? Give people Jumpclones Day ONE. You make people grind for ages to be able to make JC's at a station, or join corps with Outposts, Titan's, or Rorq's. Give people a clean clone early on. That way they can have their Learning Implant clone, AND one to fight with without grinding for it. We have people that do that for the newbies in CAS already, and lots of them get their second clone, and them head out for PVP. Now they have one with nothing to lose.
Even if you remove the learning implants, they are going to get normal hardiwres, thus still, the clone will be more than they want to risk losing.


You do make a number of valid point, based around what we currently have.
The question is, although we are here, is this a place we want to start from?
There is No good option with learning, you learn or you do not, you learn slowly, or quickly. The negatives involved are purely economic. pay money or learn slowly. And the effect is much more than a few days a year, it is significant, and does not improve gameplay in any way. They are fulfiling a function diametrically opposite to a desireable goal. They discourage gameplay.

Remaps are just plain dinosaurs, confusion and disorientation that you have to deal with on day one or suffer until some idiot/troll persuades you to use your remaps on a bad plan, when you do not have the experience to know any better.
Or at best..... No there is not a "at best" every choice is either bad or locks you into an unproductive path for gameplay.

Hardwires are quite different, they improve one's abilities in space, in combat, and other ways. There are valid reasons to use them and risk them in space.

Whether that risk is a good thing or not I have addressed above, and can be seperated into a different discussion. Learning implants are unaffected either way.

Whilst there are many ways to juggle, modify, argue, as to how the current system can be twisted into some form of use, the reality is it needs a complete rework. And If new players can learn basic skills a little faster then that is a GOOD thing as long as they don't all start jumping into T2 ships as that would be completely undesireable and not something that CCP would countenace.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

CCP Darwin
C C P
C C P Alliance
#673 - 2015-02-12 22:42:24 UTC
Sniper Smith wrote:
Learning Implants don't double your speed, we are taking about what for most is just days saved over a year.


Optimal implants and remap give you a 50% bonus to training speed for the fastest skills over doing nothing (no implants, no remap.)

(1800 SP/hr for neutral remap and no implants, 2700 SP/hr for the best possible remap and +5 implants, 1530 SP/hr for off-map skills when you are optimally mapped and implanted only for something else.)

Over a year, you'd earn 15,768,000 SP at the base rate. Strict optimal mapping and implants get you to that point at 8 months. However, the moment you decide to deviate from your optimal remap, you're training at between half speed and two-thirds that optimal speed for the privilege.

These differences are more than just days per year. They're very significant.

As I said before, this system rewards a pile of skill points for training skills in an order that is explicitly wrong for whatever you want to do (because whatever you want to do will always include a substantial amount of off-remap skills.)

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

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#674 - 2015-02-12 22:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Learning Implants don't double your speed, we are taking about what for most is just days saved over a year.


Optimal implants and remap give you a 50% bonus to training speed for the fastest skills over doing nothing (no implants, no remap.)

(1800 SP/hr for neutral remap and no implants, 2700 SP/hr for the best possible remap and +5 implants, 1530 SP/hr for off-map skills when you are optimally mapped and implanted only for something else.)

Over a year, you'd earn 15,768,000 SP at the base rate. Strict optimal mapping and implants get you to that point at 8 months. However, the moment you decide to deviate from your optimal remap, you're training at between half speed and two-thirds that optimal speed for the privilege.

These differences are more than just days per year. They're very significant.

As I said before, this system rewards a pile of skill points for training skills in an order that is explicitly wrong for whatever you want to do (because whatever you want to do will always include a substantial amount of off-remap skills.)



So very very glad you see this so clearly, please lock the dev team in a small cupboard with beer and food, and lock the door.
Promise when they are done there's more beer in the fridge.

SortedCool

Edit:- make sure to remember the food, or it will be "brainz yum" and all the learning skills in the world won't fix that .ShockedLol

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Memphis Baas
#675 - 2015-02-12 22:51:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Memphis Baas
CCP Darwin wrote:
Optimal implants and remap give you a 50% bonus to training speed for the fastest skills over doing nothing (no implants, no remap).
[...]
Over a year, you'd earn 15,768,000 SP at the base rate.


And 23 million SP at the max rate. Character Bazaar sales are typically priced at 20 million SP / year converted to ISK via the subscription costs. So clearly the 16 m SP / year isn't considered the "average" or "what everyone is doing."
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#676 - 2015-02-12 22:57:56 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Memphis Baas wrote:
CCP Darwin wrote:
Optimal implants and remap give you a 50% bonus to training speed for the fastest skills over doing nothing (no implants, no remap).
[...]
Over a year, you'd earn 15,768,000 SP at the base rate.


And 23 million SP at the max rate. Character Bazaar sales are typically priced at 20 million SP / year converted to ISK via the subscription costs. So clearly the 16 m SP / year isn't considered the "average" or "what everyone is doing."


The question is, why punish a new player? For not making smart friends who advise him well? Or search out of game for such wildly divergent options and suggestions? Or use out of game skill planners when he does not even know what those skills are?
And God forbid, he wants to change path, locked into mining for the next year? This hardly encourages player development.

Are players meant to go through some punishing sort of hazing to show they are "worthy" to play the game? Because that it is all it actually achieves.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#677 - 2015-02-12 23:00:26 UTC
I remember a lot of people actually arguing for the learning skills before they were totally removed. Should look back at those arguments and see if.. They are exactly the same as the ones here...

Yaay!!!!

epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#678 - 2015-02-12 23:01:43 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I remember a lot of people actually arguing for the learning skills before they were totally removed. Should look back at those arguments and see if.. They are exactly the same as the ones here...


Good point ^^^ I wish CCP had had the determination and courage then, that they have now, and this all would have been fixed in one go.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Dracarys.
#679 - 2015-02-12 23:17:45 UTC
CCP Darwin wrote:
Sniper Smith wrote:
Learning Implants don't double your speed, we are taking about what for most is just days saved over a year.


Optimal implants and remap give you a 50% bonus to training speed for the fastest skills over doing nothing (no implants, no remap.)

(1800 SP/hr for neutral remap and no implants, 2700 SP/hr for the best possible remap and +5 implants, 1530 SP/hr for off-map skills when you are optimally mapped and implanted only for something else.)

Over a year, you'd earn 15,768,000 SP at the base rate. Strict optimal mapping and implants get you to that point at 8 months. However, the moment you decide to deviate from your optimal remap, you're training at between half speed and two-thirds that optimal speed for the privilege.

These differences are more than just days per year. They're very significant.

As I said before, this system rewards a pile of skill points for training skills in an order that is explicitly wrong for whatever you want to do (because whatever you want to do will always include a substantial amount of off-remap skills.)

I see this as an issue of irl money value of a subscription. By playing, and taking risks, you're receiving less value for your sub money.
Memphis Baas
#680 - 2015-02-12 23:19:26 UTC
Shrug, arguments are ok; and while we argue back and forth, my saying "No" to something someone posted above me doesn't delete their post from this thread, and CCP will see it and make their own decision.