These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1001 - 2015-02-17 11:30:07 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
I think we're forgetting how serious the effects of attributes can be on the game. Jita and Amarr... influenced by the Achura stat distribution that used to drive character selection for a long time. That's been changed, but the momentum of Jita is a juggernaut at this point.

I mentioned it before, but when it comes to something like attributes and implant costs, there's no way to know how else players might behave if it was different.

The example of Jita and Achura's popularity is kind of important because it involves the same mechanic, of attributes and SP accumulation. I can't tell the future, but I'm willing to say I'm sure we'll find that EVE was gimped as a result of how attributes, remaps, and implants impinged on gameplay.


Jita was a thing long before Achura happened. Also, those early fixed attributes were pretty moronic to a point where the only not completely terrible combat option was being Gallente, we're talking easily 25-30% training speed differences here. Achura changed that.
Tia Aves
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#1002 - 2015-02-17 11:30:26 UTC
My personal take on learning implants is that they should be removed. If I want to spend ISK on hardwirings or pirate sets which improve my characters ability in PvP, that is a meaningful choice that has a varying impact depending on how much I want to spend.

Training Cybernetics V and dropping over half a PLEX to buy a +5 learning set - just to get Jump Drive Calibration V and all the other rubbish support skills I have to train at the moment a bit faster is not meaningful, its an expensive pointless mechanic and a chore. Its even worse for newer players who both want to achieve their short term skill training goals as quickly as possible, but also want to learn to PvP where their +3 set is more expensive than their 3M ISK frigate.

And yes I understand that technically removing things like learning implants is 'dumbing down' the game but in my opinion it is not significant. The complexity in EVE should come from ships, fleet compositions, fittings and tactics. Really for me the bottom line is that the risks you take engaging in PvP and the speed that you train skills really should be independent of each other.


The case for attributes and remaps I'm not even sure myself on. Specialised remaps are great especially for alts and older characters but it is frustrating at times. At the moment I'm on a balanced, non specialised remap and its rubbish knowing that really I could be opening up more hulls faster if I remapped Per/Wil. I certainly wouldn't miss them if they were removed and as above I don't think the removal would represent a significant dumbing down of the game.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1003 - 2015-02-17 11:34:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.

Not to mention heavens forbid that a new player may actually want to try their hand at Exploration, Industry and Leadership thus training Corp skills, Leadership skills, Probing skills, Manufacturing skills and Mining skills, before they actually settle into the null doctrine of 'fly these specific ships with T2 fits'.
Lets not even start to think about how many remaps that would actually take for a new player to actually experience all the various types of game play EVE has to offer without training a single one sub optimally.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1004 - 2015-02-17 11:35:28 UTC
Tia Aves wrote:
My personal take on learning implants is that they should be removed. If I want to spend ISK on hardwirings or pirate sets which improve my characters ability in PvP, that is a meaningful choice that has a varying impact depending on how much I want to spend.

Training Cybernetics V and dropping over half a PLEX to buy a +5 learning set - just to get Jump Drive Calibration V and all the other rubbish support skills I have to train at the moment a bit faster is not meaningful, its an expensive pointless mechanic and a chore. Its even worse for newer players who both want to achieve their short term skill training goals as quickly as possible, but also want to learn to PvP where their +3 set is more expensive than their 3M ISK frigate.

And yes I understand that technically removing things like learning implants is 'dumbing down' the game but in my opinion it is not significant. The complexity in EVE should come from ships, fleet compositions, fittings and tactics. Really for me the bottom line is that the risks you take engaging in PvP and the speed that you train skills really should be independent of each other.


The case for attributes and remaps I'm not even sure myself on. Specialised remaps are great especially for alts and older characters but it is frustrating at times. At the moment I'm on a balanced, non specialised remap and its rubbish knowing that really I could be opening up more hulls faster if I remapped Per/Wil. I certainly wouldn't miss them if they were removed and as above I don't think the removal would represent a significant dumbing down of the game.


Sounds like "it would favour me personally if they got removed".

Are you using learning plants as you pvp?
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1005 - 2015-02-17 11:36:29 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.

Not to mention heavens forbid that a new player may actually want to try their hand at Exploration, Industry and Leadership thus training Corp skills, Leadership skills, Probing skills, Manufacturing skills and Mining skills, before they actually settle into the null doctrine of 'fly these specific ships with T2 fits'.
Lets not even start to think about how many remaps that would actually take for a new player to actually experience all the various types of game play EVE has to offer without training a single one sub optimally.


Ah there it is "T2 doctrine" which translates to "I'm just cattle and fine with it", which comes back to my earlier points on that.
Dave stark
#1006 - 2015-02-17 11:38:05 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.

Not to mention heavens forbid that a new player may actually want to try their hand at Exploration, Industry and Leadership thus training Corp skills, Leadership skills, Probing skills, Manufacturing skills and Mining skills, before they actually settle into the null doctrine of 'fly these specific ships with T2 fits'.
Lets not even start to think about how many remaps that would actually take for a new player to actually experience all the various types of game play EVE has to offer without training a single one sub optimally.


Ah there it is "T2 doctrine" which translates to "I'm just cattle and fine with it", which comes back to my earlier points on that.


you still haven't justified why it's perfectly acceptable for new players to get shafted on sp/hour unlike us veterans, mind you.

or if you have and i missed it, would you care to link the post?
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1007 - 2015-02-17 11:39:37 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
again with the forced. did you never think it might designed that way for a reason, ffs.

and you are whining about 5%


i'm not whining about 5% at all, i'm not even whining. i just stated a fact that was called a "lie" then proved to be a truth.

sure it might be intentional; i'm also saying that intentional reason is stupid, especially in the climate of trying to improve new player retention.

Gregor Parud wrote:
Based on what logic?


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.


for someone that wants nothing you're sure pushing the agenda here.

8 days,,, ffs ShockedRoll


i'm not pushing any agenda. i've just laid a fact out there and if you say you're fine with it. that's fine. although now i'm curious as to why you think it's fine that new players have no option but to train skills slower than vetrans?


the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1008 - 2015-02-17 11:40:28 UTC
Jane Shapperd wrote:
Tipa Riot wrote:
Jane Shapperd wrote:


i use +5 implants all the time and i pvp in them i don't give a **** if i lose them as long as i train faster than other players

Interesting statement, if I check the killboard of Jane Shapperd ... I see ... many empty pods ;)


oh snap somone notices and actully wants to counter my points ;)

when i lose my ship i consider the situation if i am going to lose my pod 100%( bubble , pipe bomb , gate camp smart bombs) i start upluging everysingle implant starting with learning +5s then hardwairing implants as all the 5 of them are cheaper than two +5.

i mentioned in one of my posts i mostly lose my implants by unpluging them not by being poded as i care more about kb rather than my wallet. ( page 36 just under point B)

Very interesting. You want to keep the benefits of +5 but are not willing to swallow the consequences? And no, losing ISK does not count as a consequence in your case, as you give a **** about it. To make it real, I would suggest the game should block unplugging implants during PvP combat timer.

IMO the game should never force you to risk game subscription time or real money (in case you can't effort losing +4/+5 twice a day with just grinding for ISK). Instead make everything about risk/reward sandbox related. Though your proposal (ship bonus instead of SP/h bonus) goes well in that direction, I don't see it's feasible for the aforementioned points. I'm confident CCP will come up with a well balanced replacement, if they remove attributes.

Regarding non-consequences of pod death and permanent skill point loss with T3 Cruiser, I propose thinking about a temporary skill point lock instead. For example instead of losing the skill level, it could be locked (not usable) for 1 week. Also on pod destruction the player should "lose" the highest rank skill level named in the pre-requisites of the ship he left for 1 hour. This would especially force T2 pilots to reship into another ship before coming back to the battle.

I'm my own NPC alt.
Dave stark
#1009 - 2015-02-17 11:42:09 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.


i wasn't asking if the system worked.

i asked you why you think it's ok that new players are forced to train slower than the rest of us.
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1010 - 2015-02-17 11:42:31 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.

Not to mention heavens forbid that a new player may actually want to try their hand at Exploration, Industry and Leadership thus training Corp skills, Leadership skills, Probing skills, Manufacturing skills and Mining skills, before they actually settle into the null doctrine of 'fly these specific ships with T2 fits'.
Lets not even start to think about how many remaps that would actually take for a new player to actually experience all the various types of game play EVE has to offer without training a single one sub optimally.


Ah there it is "T2 doctrine" which translates to "I'm just cattle and fine with it", which comes back to my earlier points on that.


you still haven't justified why it's perfectly acceptable for new players to get shafted on sp/hour unlike us veterans, mind you.

or if you have and i missed it, would you care to link the post?


once in your lifetime in EVE you'll miss 8 days training. you call this being shafted?
Blacksuns
Doomheim
#1011 - 2015-02-17 11:42:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Blacksuns
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:

for someone that wants nothing you're sure pushing the agenda here.

8 days,,, ffs ShockedRoll


There is no agenda, you simply don't understand Dave's point. Simples.

It doesn't matter if it 'only' differs 2 or 6 or 8 days. Unlike yourself a new player does not know the information a veteran player knows.

Sure they can go read about what is the most optimal way to max out training time but only a small portion of new players will do just that. Most new players just wanna play, shoot stuff, interact and learn as they go.

There is simply no gain in letting new players train slower than a veteran.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1012 - 2015-02-17 11:43:10 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Tia Aves wrote:
*snip*

Sounds like "it would favour me personally if they got removed".

You imply that only a group of people would benefit from there removal.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Blacksuns
Doomheim
#1013 - 2015-02-17 11:44:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Blacksuns
double post
Dave stark
#1014 - 2015-02-17 11:44:59 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Gregor Parud wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:


not logic; fact, you know the fact in the post that quite obviously pointed out you either train 8 days slower or blow 3 remaps to achieve the same level of sp/hour us older players enjoy because we don't have to worry about training off remap support skills any more.

****, pretty sure it was you who even presented the proof. how quickly you forget.

Not to mention heavens forbid that a new player may actually want to try their hand at Exploration, Industry and Leadership thus training Corp skills, Leadership skills, Probing skills, Manufacturing skills and Mining skills, before they actually settle into the null doctrine of 'fly these specific ships with T2 fits'.
Lets not even start to think about how many remaps that would actually take for a new player to actually experience all the various types of game play EVE has to offer without training a single one sub optimally.


Ah there it is "T2 doctrine" which translates to "I'm just cattle and fine with it", which comes back to my earlier points on that.


you still haven't justified why it's perfectly acceptable for new players to get shafted on sp/hour unlike us veterans, mind you.

or if you have and i missed it, would you care to link the post?


once in your lifetime in EVE you'll miss 8 days training. you call this being shafted?


we've been through this, it has already been proven that they earn less sp than us and have no choice in the matter.

now, answer the question; why is it acceptable that new players are forced to train skills at a lower rate than us, or forego training pretty much essential skills all together in order to enjoy the same levels of sp/hour we do?
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers
#1015 - 2015-02-17 11:45:21 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.


i wasn't asking if the system worked.

i asked you why you think it's ok that new players are forced to train slower than the rest of us.



because 8 days is nothing. you again make out that nobody else had to train the very same way when we did, so how is anyone being shafted ?
Dave stark
#1016 - 2015-02-17 11:46:55 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.


i wasn't asking if the system worked.

i asked you why you think it's ok that new players are forced to train slower than the rest of us.



because 8 days is nothing. you again make out that nobody else had to train the very same way when we did, so how is anyone being shafted ?


you think it's ok because you don't regard 8 days as a long time. that's fine. glad we finally got to the bottom of that one.

"because we all had to endure a ****** system" is not justification for keeping a ****** system.
Gregor Parud
Imperial Academy
#1017 - 2015-02-17 11:47:55 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
you still haven't justified why it's perfectly acceptable for new players to get shafted on sp/hour unlike us veterans, mind you.

or if you have and i missed it, would you care to link the post?


They only get "shafted" (for 5%, nice hyperbole) compared to a vet who only trains specific attribs for a long time. And the only way for him to get to that point is to have done that the whole time is if that vet has been using that OCD "must be optimal" which will have resulted in said Vet to not have done anything of note for a long time. Besides, by that time we're talking about hilarious skills which aren't in any way important to newer players. And by the time said newbies get to that point they'll have 3 remaps left to toy with that, would they want to.


Mag's
Azn Empire
#1018 - 2015-02-17 11:48:01 UTC
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.
It works fine for me, because I only have level 5 games to play in regards to skill training atm. But working fine for me, doesn't mean whole lot in the grand scheme of things.

I can however, see there is a discrepancy between how the system treats me and new players. Even if I like the current system. But then my likes for it, may be rooted in how long I've played.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1019 - 2015-02-17 11:49:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
xxxTRUSTxxx wrote:
the system works fine, you suggest it isn't.


i wasn't asking if the system worked.

i asked you why you think it's ok that new players are forced to train slower than the rest of us.



because 8 days is nothing. you again make out that nobody else had to train the very same way when we did, so how is anyone being shafted ?


you think it's ok because you don't regard 8 days as a long time. that's fine. glad we finally got to the bottom of that one.

"because we all had to endure a ****** system" is not justification for keeping a ****** system.

dave's right on this one, xxtrust. The intel/mem per/wil dilemma is stacked against players who have to make the choice, and doesn't at all affect players who have trained those skills. Obviously. So this is very literally a problem that heavily/ nearly exclusively affects new characters. Just because you suffered through it, doesn't mean it should stay. It can be better.

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Dave stark
#1020 - 2015-02-17 11:49:50 UTC
Gregor Parud wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
you still haven't justified why it's perfectly acceptable for new players to get shafted on sp/hour unlike us veterans, mind you.

or if you have and i missed it, would you care to link the post?


They only get "shafted" (for 5%, nice hyperbole) compared to a vet who only trains specific attribs for a long time. And the only way for him to get to that point is to have done that the whole time is if that vet has been using that OCD "must be optimal" which will have resulted in said Vet to not have done anything of note for a long time. Besides, by that time we're talking about hilarious skills which aren't in any way important to newer players. And by the time said newbies get to that point they'll have 3 remaps left to toy with that, would they want to.




and we're back to "i had to endure a bad system, so do new players".

that's really not a good justification for keeping a bad system.