These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Get rid of learning implants.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#261 - 2011-12-20 18:51:08 UTC
Amarr Champine wrote:
This is just silly...You want a jumpclone? Then get your standings up. No MMO should offer everything to you at once, in every MMO you have to grind in some way. In this case, you grind your standing up to get a jumpclone. There are also other alternatives to getting jumpclones. Any null sec group worth their salt should have a Rorq that will provide you with a jumpclone without the standings issue. It seems to me that you guys want to go from A-Z by skipping the rest of the alphabet. Video games and especially RPGs are about becoming stronger/working towards a better all around toon. Hell, even first person shooters are this way nowadays. (BF3, Modern Warfare) Seriously....If you don't want to actually play the game and want to be all powerful from the start, then why bother?


character sales void your point entirely ;p

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Amarr Champine
Doomheim
#262 - 2011-12-20 18:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Amarr Champine
Andski wrote:
Amarr Champine wrote:
This is just silly...You want a jumpclone? Then get your standings up. No MMO should offer everything to you at once, in every MMO you have to grind in some way. In this case, you grind your standing up to get a jumpclone. There are also other alternatives to getting jumpclones. Any null sec group worth their salt should have a Rorq that will provide you with a jumpclone without the standings issue. It seems to me that you guys want to go from A-Z by skipping the rest of the alphabet. Video games and especially RPGs are about becoming stronger/working towards a better all around toon. Hell, even first person shooters are this way nowadays. (BF3, Modern Warfare) Seriously....If you don't want to actually play the game and want to be all powerful from the start, then why bother?


character sales void your point entirely ;p



If that is the option people take, then no it doesn't void my point. It helps it. Spend money or isk and you can have access to a toon with a jumpclone. Whammy, problem solved yet again. In either case, you promote the game. You are are either working in real life to buy plex or you are working in-game to get the isk. Still requires work. CCP isn't giving you a free overpowered toon. I actually sold a toon to a goon a month or two ago, he got it.

Look I can do it too.

() ()
(^ ^)
mm

bunny!
Amarr Champine
Doomheim
#263 - 2011-12-20 18:57:33 UTC
ugh double post fail
Alexander Jabez
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#264 - 2011-12-20 19:01:14 UTC
This all comes back to flying in what you can afford to lose. Can't afford to get podded w/ +5's in your head? use +4's. Can't afford to lose that bhaalgorn you just bought? Stick with the geddon. You choose what you fly, how you fly it, and who you fly it with. There is no game mechanic flaw with learning implants, the only flaw is how people fly.

And noobs really have no reason to be flying around with expensive implants. The average skill train time for a new player is probably around a day for the first month or two, the bonus that the implants would give wouldn't even be that effective. And when the implants would become useful the pilot should be reaching a point where they can afford them better. Especially if they are in a good corp.

As a few others have posted before me, you want to fix the problem of losing implants jump into a different clone or learn to fly better. Neither are very difficult.
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#265 - 2011-12-20 19:03:21 UTC
Orisa Medeem wrote:
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
I would also support removal of attributes entirely for that matter, replacing it with a fixed sp/day. The attribute system we have seems like it was originally intended to promote uniqueness between characters but it just doesn't work out. EVE has evolved along a totally different path. All it does nowadays is reward year-long remaps and inflexibility.


You see, there is only one reason left why I don't support the complete removal of attributes (which is way more radical than the thread OP): there are a lot of people out there that wants more options to actively influence how fast their skill training goes.

There is some truth in these claims. After all it is your toon and you should be able to control him to be better at what you want him to (skill training, in this case).

But that may also be a reflex of people who played too much traditional RPG and MMO, where you are supposed to make insane ammounts of grinding to become high level.

But we are getting off-topic here. The thread is about how the implants end up excluding people from the PvP content in the long run, even if they don't realize it and even if it was due their decisions all along.


Learning implants promote new players to work in the game to get better implants or it promotes them to load up the EVE website and buy PLEX. Either way, its good for EVE.
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#266 - 2011-12-20 20:16:10 UTC
Forum Alts: I kind of agree with our Goon friend. My posts would yield no credence had I used an alt. I think I raised some good points and addressed the OP thoroughly. That’s all I’ll say on that one.

Older Players: Eve should, and has been designed to, favor older players. It is a given. That said, life should not be made too difficult to new players. They should not have nearly the benefits that older players enjoy, but this is a game and should be fun regardless of character age.

PvP Entry: While removal of learning implants may persuade a few players to PvP, I don’t think this would affect the majority of players. The loss of other implants, modules, and ships are also considerations. Honestly, I think you would be surprised how few payers have +5s and still do not engage in PvP.
Lierena
Horizons Unlimited Ltd.
#267 - 2011-12-21 09:19:04 UTC
I have a set of +4's and pew pew regardless. This idea is based on the belief that implants make people not want to go do other things in eve, and as far as logical fallacies go this one is pretty basic. The idea that pew pew is the end all be all of EVE is wrong, as there are many things for a pilot of New Eden to do in our wonderfully diverse universe, and that the only thing keeping new players from getting out there to 'play eve' as you see it is a set of implants that this hypothetical new player couldn't presumably afford for a while. If people like you, me, or anyone else want to spend their hard earned (or not so hard earned) isk on implants that'll give higher skill points, that's our right as players. If you prefer to not use them out of a fear of being podded, however, then that too is your right as a player. Logically, I can only see the removal of these implants having a largely positive impact for the nullsec player base, rather than the base as a whole. As such, I cannot support this proposal, and call on non nullsec players to stand with me.

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.
Xander Hunt
#268 - 2011-12-21 09:41:36 UTC
Lierena wrote:

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.


This surprises you? Any of the large alliances tend to steer the hand of CCP in their game design. The players that have no interest in low/null end up getting the short end of the stick, such as getting stuck with stupidly high export taxes at POCO, as one example.
Alexander Jabez
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2011-12-21 19:42:16 UTC
Xander Hunt wrote:
Lierena wrote:

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.


This surprises you? Any of the large alliances tend to steer the hand of CCP in their game design. The players that have no interest in low/null end up getting the short end of the stick, such as getting stuck with stupidly high export taxes at POCO, as one example.



They are trying to push people out of high sec and into the regions where the game is suppose to be played, i.e. low/null. The POCO's were a great idea imo. But we digress...
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#270 - 2011-12-22 08:42:09 UTC
Alexander Jabez wrote:
They are trying to push people out of high sec and into the regions where the game is suppose to be played, i.e. low/null. The POCO's were a great idea imo. But we digress...


Seen 0.0, been there, done that. Been not impressed. Sure, rocks are larger, resources are more plentiful... But is it worth all that hassle? For me, it isn't. And I'm not talking about expenses in ISK only. But back to topic:

Using the often-cited sandbox metapher it is just a matter of what tools you have and not have. Implants - regardless whether they're attribute implants, skill implants or maybe boosters (which are a sort of temporary implants, for all it's worth) are just another tool. Use it or don't, it's a personal decision.

Taking away whatever tool there is just makes the game a bit poorer. Be it modules, be it ships - even implants.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#271 - 2011-12-22 11:57:21 UTC
I'd like to mention that I don't speak for my alliance!

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Xander Hunt
#272 - 2011-12-22 12:07:59 UTC
Alexander Jabez wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
Lierena wrote:

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.


This surprises you? Any of the large alliances tend to steer the hand of CCP in their game design. The players that have no interest in low/null end up getting the short end of the stick, such as getting stuck with stupidly high export taxes at POCO, as one example.



They are trying to push people out of high sec and into the regions where the game is suppose to be played, i.e. low/null. The POCO's were a great idea imo. But we digress...


"Supposed" to? In no literature that I've seen from CCP, official or otherwise, that game play is "SUPPOSED" to be played in low/null.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#273 - 2011-12-22 12:09:31 UTC
Xander Hunt wrote:
Alexander Jabez wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
Lierena wrote:

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.


This surprises you? Any of the large alliances tend to steer the hand of CCP in their game design. The players that have no interest in low/null end up getting the short end of the stick, such as getting stuck with stupidly high export taxes at POCO, as one example.



They are trying to push people out of high sec and into the regions where the game is suppose to be played, i.e. low/null. The POCO's were a great idea imo. But we digress...


"Supposed" to? In no literature that I've seen from CCP, official or otherwise, that game play is "SUPPOSED" to be played in low/null.


alright, so what attracted you to this game in the first place? the idea of running missions all day solo or all the stuff about the 600 player battles?

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Xander Hunt
#274 - 2011-12-22 13:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Xander Hunt
Andski wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
Alexander Jabez wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
Lierena wrote:

And, on a side note, I can't help but notice that this first page is full of goon and test members almost exclusively... Two of the biggest nullsec alliances pushing for something that'll greatly affect them, regardless of the impact (or lack thereof) everywhere else.


This surprises you? Any of the large alliances tend to steer the hand of CCP in their game design. The players that have no interest in low/null end up getting the short end of the stick, such as getting stuck with stupidly high export taxes at POCO, as one example.



They are trying to push people out of high sec and into the regions where the game is suppose to be played, i.e. low/null. The POCO's were a great idea imo. But we digress...


"Supposed" to? In no literature that I've seen from CCP, official or otherwise, that game play is "SUPPOSED" to be played in low/null.


alright, so what attracted you to this game in the first place? the idea of running missions all day solo or all the stuff about the 600 player battles?


No "END GAME".

Every other game that I have ever played has a particular point you have to get to to "win", then start over. Be it get to level 80, or, race to the end of the track faster than anyone else, or beat up X number of armies while collecting Y number of jewels.

In EVE, there is no "END GAME". And there is SO MUCH to do in this game.

This is the problem with a lot of people who play this game for the sake of PvP, and believe me, I'm NOT saying you're wrong, is that they're so narrow focused on one of the major facets of this game that there are other facets that they miss out on. True, said people may not find it attractive, they may find it boring, they may not have any interest in it. PvP is not the END ALL & BE ALL of this game, and THAT is what fascinates me about EVE.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#275 - 2011-12-22 14:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Takeshi Yamato
Xander Hunt wrote:
This is the problem with a lot of people who play this game for the sake of PvP, and believe me, I'm NOT saying you're wrong, is that they're so narrow focused on one of the major facets of this game that there are other facets that they miss out on. True, said people may not find it attractive, they may find it boring, they may not have any interest in it. PvP is not the END ALL & BE ALL of this game, and THAT is what fascinates me about EVE.


Removing learning implants isn't going to force anyone into 0.0 or force them to change their playstyle. It will just remove the unique incentive to stay in highsec with +5's (or +4's for the poor) plugged in while NOT playing the game to the fullest. This is bad for the same reasons learning skills were bad, and worse because the incentive never ends unlike learning skills. Of course, some of those actually doing this may feel like they're losing an advantage over people who don't Blink
Xander Hunt
#276 - 2011-12-22 17:58:36 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
This is the problem with a lot of people who play this game for the sake of PvP, and believe me, I'm NOT saying you're wrong, is that they're so narrow focused on one of the major facets of this game that there are other facets that they miss out on. True, said people may not find it attractive, they may find it boring, they may not have any interest in it. PvP is not the END ALL & BE ALL of this game, and THAT is what fascinates me about EVE.


Removing learning implants isn't going to force anyone into 0.0 or force them to change their playstyle. It will just remove the unique incentive to stay in highsec with +5's (or +4's for the poor) plugged in while NOT playing the game to the fullest. This is bad for the same reasons learning skills were bad, and worse because the incentive never ends unlike learning skills. Of course, some of those actually doing this may feel like they're losing an advantage over people who don't Blink


[sarcasm]
So why not remove implants ENTIRELY then? All of them. All slots GONE. Totally removed from the game. No, really.. Lets....
[/sarcasm]

[seriously]
When you have implants from 6-10 sitting in your head, you've got PERMANENT bonuses that affect other aspects of the game, be it for ship bonuses, tracking bonuses, mining bonuses, whatever. Some of those implants are also in the 100s of millions of ISK to buy as well. They give you the the same effect as what slot 1-5 do, except they don't gear towards a permanent learning bonus, but a bonus to how you fly your ships for different situations.

The only real difference between 1-5 and 6-10 is that 1-5 adds SP which extend the life of your character (excluding certain scenarios where SP can be lost), where as 6-10 grants bonuses for that moment, however, 6-10 may give you the edge you need over another player in PvP, or allows you to bring in more rocks per cycle, or whatever for "that moment in time". Either way, the implants give an edge. The point of ALL the implants are to give players the choice in WHICH edge they want. It'd be also up to the player to put in the 100 mill implant to get that extra 5% bonus for tracking speeds (I don't know if there is an implant that does that, just picking something for PvP) so it'd be THEIR decision if they want to pay in ISK for that edge.

How that edge comes into play is a matter of player CHOICE. I concede that true that you gain more SP with the implants in while offline than you do without, with no effort aside from grinding the near 600mill ISK to get the set. That aspect is there. But this just means that players have the ability to get into more aspects of the game that require higher levels of skill faster with no effort. Now, while sitting in +5s may be a DETERRENT to engage low/null, it is by no mean a game mechanic restriction. The choice is yours to put +3,4, or 5 in your head, or don't use implants at all.

It also comes to mind that the same ordeal with R&D agents happen where you grind to a certain point to get research points for free. After that, the player doesn't have to do ANYTHING. But you can cash out and get an influx of ISK. This also happens while the player is offline. Should that be abolished as well? Gain for no effort for any length of time? But, since most die hard PvP'rs don't do research I guess they'd never think of that.
[/seriously]
Tomytronic
Perkone
Caldari State
#277 - 2011-12-22 18:25:14 UTC
I don't think you really understand anything...

I mean, you're ignoring everything that has been said in this thread.

Everything.

Including the stuff that didn't make sense and was flagrantly idiotic.
Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2011-12-22 18:31:26 UTC
Xander Hunt wrote:
The only real difference between 1-5 and 6-10 is that 1-5 adds SP which extend the life of your character (excluding certain scenarios where SP can be lost), where as 6-10 grants bonuses for that moment, however, 6-10 may give you the edge you need over another player in PvP, or allows you to bring in more rocks per cycle, or whatever for "that moment in time". Either way, the implants give an edge. The point of ALL the implants are to give players the choice in WHICH edge they want. It'd be also up to the player to put in the 100 mill implant to get that extra 5% bonus for tracking speeds (I don't know if there is an implant that does that, just picking something for PvP) so it'd be THEIR decision if they want to pay in ISK for that edge.


You could apply the same logic to learning skills: they too were merely a matter of choice. Of course, we all know that not training them was a bad choice. Bottom line is, some choices are at odds with what this game is about and they need not exist. Choice is not a holy cow that shall not be slaughtered.
Xander Hunt
#279 - 2011-12-22 19:19:12 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
The only real difference between 1-5 and 6-10 is that 1-5 adds SP which extend the life of your character (excluding certain scenarios where SP can be lost), where as 6-10 grants bonuses for that moment, however, 6-10 may give you the edge you need over another player in PvP, or allows you to bring in more rocks per cycle, or whatever for "that moment in time". Either way, the implants give an edge. The point of ALL the implants are to give players the choice in WHICH edge they want. It'd be also up to the player to put in the 100 mill implant to get that extra 5% bonus for tracking speeds (I don't know if there is an implant that does that, just picking something for PvP) so it'd be THEIR decision if they want to pay in ISK for that edge.


You could apply the same logic to learning skills: they too were merely a matter of choice. Of course, we all know that not training them was a bad choice. Bottom line is, some choices are at odds with what this game is about and they need not exist. Choice is not a holy cow that shall not be slaughtered.


The heart of this thread is RISK versus DETERRENT versus ENJOYMENT versus CHOICE. Each one is weighted differently for each player, and this is where everyone seems to get up in arms about. Everyone should have that ENJOYMENT scale way up high. They'd better otherwise, I really don't know why their playing. CHOICE is also probably something that would be way up on the scale as well.

RISK versus DETERRENT will reflect the level of ENJOYMENT and CHOICE, simply by other players actions. Right now, my corp is at war. Most of us aren't war mongers, don't care to PvP (I'm one of them) but then there are a few of us who are blood thirsty, and some of us will step up to the bat and get the adrenalin rush (I'm one of them - Don't care to PvP but get the rush?). I don't enjoy being in a war. I don't enjoy the thought of losing my ships at a random time because I just didn't pay attention to local once and didn't notice they came online. That turns my ENJOYMENT level down, and the number of CHOICES I have while in game. Being in a war is a DETERRENT for me to play the game I want to play. That mean I should start up a thread saying WAR shouldn't exist for corps based in high-sec?
Velin Dhal
Zeonic CG
#280 - 2011-12-22 22:23:39 UTC
Takeshi Yamato wrote:
Xander Hunt wrote:
The only real difference between 1-5 and 6-10 is that 1-5 adds SP which extend the life of your character (excluding certain scenarios where SP can be lost), where as 6-10 grants bonuses for that moment, however, 6-10 may give you the edge you need over another player in PvP, or allows you to bring in more rocks per cycle, or whatever for "that moment in time". Either way, the implants give an edge. The point of ALL the implants are to give players the choice in WHICH edge they want. It'd be also up to the player to put in the 100 mill implant to get that extra 5% bonus for tracking speeds (I don't know if there is an implant that does that, just picking something for PvP) so it'd be THEIR decision if they want to pay in ISK for that edge.


You could apply the same logic to learning skills: they too were merely a matter of choice. Of course, we all know that not training them was a bad choice. Bottom line is, some choices are at odds with what this game is about and they need not exist. Choice is not a holy cow that shall not be slaughtered.


Player choice IS the "holy cow" in EVE. That choice is what sets this game apart from other games. The choice to be whatever you want and do whatever you want. To train however you want and fit your ships however you want. The more you slaughter this so called "holy cow", the more EVE becomes comparable to other MMOs. Now I'm not saying that other MMOs are bad because they aren't EVE. What I'm trying to say here is that there is a lot less player choice in other MMOs compared to EVE.