These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Skill Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Why doesn't CCP like current Attribute system?

First post
Author
The Larold
This is an anagram of itself.
#1 - 2015-08-22 18:19:09 UTC
I apologize - I found a post a whlie ago that I was reading, but am not having luck finding it right now.

I remember reading a post that CCP would definitely like to revamp the current attribute / training system, because they didn't like it. (Or something to that effect.)

But as so many of my fellow co-worker engineers are fond of asking each other, "What problem are you actually trying to solve?"

I'm not saying the current system is good or bad - it's just that I couldn't seem to find any specific information on what CCP (or the experienced Eve community) doesn't like about it.

And now here comes a super-navie question that I hope doesn't upset too many of you:

If it's a matter of complexity, why not just make it super-simple? Remove learning implant slots. Refund money for learning implants. Set all skills to train at same speed. Or, make remaps super-simple and apply a fixed speed bonus to a specific skill group or groups. Arbitrary example: All skills train at 2,300 SP per hour, but your "speed bonus" thingy is currently applied to, say, all shield and targeting skills. For those, you train at 2,600 SP per hour. You can switch your "bonus thingy" once every X months.

I'm _sure_ I'm missing some tricky nuances. Would you experienced folks mind helping me understand what CCP likes and dislikes about the current implementation?

Thanks!!!


Painkill3r
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2015-08-22 18:58:34 UTC
The Larold wrote:

I apologize - I found a post a whlie ago that I was reading, but am not having luck finding it right now.


The relevant thread is here.

The Larold wrote:

I remember reading a post that CCP would definitely like to revamp the current attribute / training system, because they didn't like it. (Or something to that effect.)


The operative quote from Rise is in the op of that thread, but here you go:

CCP Rise wrote:
Q: 'Attributes aren't very interesting, you should remove them'
A: Again, we agree. Team Size Matters discussed removing them on the o7 show (or some other public venue) awhile back and it's still something we are very interested in. We need to figure out a good way to handle all the learning implants in the game though, which is actually a difficult problem. If any of you have awesome ideas for how to handle it don't hesitate to make suggestions.



The Larold
This is an anagram of itself.
#3 - 2015-08-22 19:48:57 UTC
Thanks for your patience and the referral to that thread. I'm going to dig in and read up on the info.
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#4 - 2015-08-22 22:29:58 UTC
Originally, there were learning skills that you trained. These increased your learning speed, and were good in the long haul, but the sacrifice was short term achievement.
Example:
7 days in the gunnery section, or 7 days in learning skills.
Then another 20 days on ship skills, or 20 days on learning.\and so on..
The break even point, if I recall, was something like 4 years and 20 days, to train all the learnings to V, and then recover the lost months you had put into them.

This current system is better, more newb friendly, and works fine, in my opinion. BUT: The complaining still comes from new characters who can't wrap their head around the time sink.
CCP is naturally concerned about new player experience, and retaining those player subscriptions. That is the gist of it.

Again, I think the system is fine, but I admit, I'm way past the learning cliff. Not a problem for me at this point.
The Larold
This is an anagram of itself.
#5 - 2015-08-22 23:41:56 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
Originally, there were learning skills that you trained. These increased your learning speed, and were good in the long haul, but the sacrifice was short term achievement.
Example:
7 days in the gunnery section, or 7 days in learning skills.
Then another 20 days on ship skills, or 20 days on learning.\and so on..
The break even point, if I recall, was something like 4 years and 20 days, to train all the learnings to V, and then recover the lost months you had put into them.

This current system is better, more newb friendly, and works fine, in my opinion. BUT: The complaining still comes from new characters who can't wrap their head around the time sink.
CCP is naturally concerned about new player experience, and retaining those player subscriptions. That is the gist of it.

Again, I think the system is fine, but I admit, I'm way past the learning cliff. Not a problem for me at this point.


Oh yeah, I definitely remember the Learning skills. ;) I got into Eve around 2007 for the first go-around, and got every one up to V, except perhaps the advanced one for social. I played for about 6 months, then accidentally let my CC get billed for another six months, so I skilled without playing. Played another 6 months in 2010, and back again today, hopefully for quite awhile.

When the massive SP refund came around for the learning skills, I dumped as much as I could to get into a Marauder safely with nice fits. Also remaps were around in 2010, so I was thrilled to discover those. Optimum mapping combined with +5 implants... 2,700 sp/hour was a beautiful thing. Now I feel gross whenever I'm training anything that's < 2,520 / hour. :)
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#6 - 2015-08-23 14:15:05 UTC
RavenPaine wrote:
This current system is better, more newb friendly, and works fine, in my opinion. BUT: The complaining still comes from new characters who can't wrap their head around the time sink.

I don't think it's so much the time sink as the perceived opportunity cost...
A new player remapped as quite a generalist will make pretty good time training the many different things a new character "needs" to train... but they won't train as quickly on ships (for example) as someone mapped Per/Will. It's a pretty easy leap at that point to new characters being disadvantaged by attributes...

I think removing attributes is the wrong direction however. The perceived problem is the perceived opportunity cost, and that comes from the choice granted by remaps - What would happen if every new character were given a fairly generic mapping to begin with (based of the needs of the "essential" skills) and didn't unlock their bonus remaps until some time later on in their career; be it six weeks or even six months down the line?
It would make things more difficult for those training single-task alts of course, and it would mean that (in particular) station traders would suffer somewhat (because they don't need much of anything beyond Char/Mem skills which would be poorly represented in the initial mapping); but it is my understanding that turnover of orders and therefore funds is probably the bigger bottleneck for them and therefore the impact should be lessened... Not to mention that as plugging in implants would be the only way to shift the initial map until the bonus remaps were unlocked the demand for social adaption chips might increase (making them slightly less the "junk" implant).
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#7 - 2015-08-23 15:32:43 UTC
The real question should be - is the current attribute mapping and implant simply complexity for the sake of complexity or does it make a meaningful contribution to gameplay?

The fact that CCP would like to remove them doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon. Hopefully they'll remove things that actually detract from the game like T2 BPO's and off-grid boosting first!
Fornost Fornostsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-08-24 08:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Fornost Fornostsen
The main problem with attributes is that if you are a fresh newbie, and you want to fit and fly ships, you need to train Shields, Armor, Engineering and Electronic Systems skills (INT-MEM), while training Spaceship Command, Gunnery and Missiles skills (PER - WIL) and Drone Skills (MEM-PER) as well as Navigation skills (INT - PER).

So you basically need an all-around remap.

If you train a fresh new alt, you don't need to undock with him until "he's ready", son you can focus on a set of skills, than remap and focus to the next set, then remap again, and so on...

This mean that, after a year of training, the always docked alt will have x skill points, while the playing newbye will have to train for other 76 days (2 months and an half) to reach the same x SP.

And this is before taking implants into account!

I think that a system where the best way to achieve an objective is not to play the game has to be re-thinked Roll

* edit: forgot Navigation skills in the example.
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#9 - 2015-08-29 18:37:19 UTC
I think attributes make the game more interesting. All CCP needs to do is reduce the 1 year remap cycle to something shorter to satisfy the people who complain about it.

Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-09-02 18:17:03 UTC
As a newbie I don't mind the attribute system. It's not the most compelling thing in the game, but I can see where making skill training a one-dimensional "everything of the same rank trains at the same rate," is undesirable from the vantage point of removing that having to make a choice when it comes to whether or not your want to have good niche skills, like drones, or good core skills, weapons, ships, etc.

Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2015-09-02 19:12:02 UTC
Zihao wrote:
but I can see where making skill training a one-dimensional "everything of the same rank trains at the same rate," is undesirable

Except it's already one dimensional. There's basically two types of remaps:
1. I'm going to be training a very uniform set of skills over the next year: Remap Primary/Secondary.
2. I'm new, and need to bounce around a lot between skill types: Remap Perception/Intelligence.

The effect of attribute remaps is opaque. Feel free to poll your corp and see how many people remapped based on the advice of Google, without actually understanding the impact on their training time. I bet most of them did, and even better - they're better off for it. At worst, they had to spend a half hour figuring out what the Primary/Secondary would be for their next 12 months of skills.

And then there's the implants. Expensive, otherwise pointless widgets which just encourage ship spinning.

Attributes are silly complexity for its own sake.
O'nira
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#12 - 2015-09-03 05:28:09 UTC
1 year is too long, needs to be 6months or less. that's almost no dev time for a lot of good for the new players especially.

maybe even give new players 2 month remaps for the first year or whatever. anything to help them is good imo because the skill system sucks ass at getting new players involved in the game


Fornost Fornostsen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2015-09-03 10:50:57 UTC
Aerasia wrote:
Except it's already one dimensional. There's basically two types of remaps:
1. I'm going to be training a very uniform set of skills over the next year: Remap Primary/Secondary.
2. I'm new, and need to bounce around a lot between skill types: Remap Perception/Intelligence.


This!

tl;dr
Is there some fun in attributes? I mean, why i have to be rewarded because i train skills in "groups" instead of in the order i prefer?


The most common complain that i read from newbies in this forum is that they will never "fill the gap" with veterans and a common suggestion is to find ways to improve the SP gained by active playing.
I strongly disagree on both the complain and the solution, BUT the attributes system is a feature diminishing SP x hr for newbies actively playing the game.

Why?
Because as I wrote before a real newbie who wants to play the game and flying ships will be stuck in a sub-optimal remap for the skill he's training, while an alt (that do not need to fly until "he's ready") or a veteran (who has already well trained core and support skills and can fly a lot of ships) will comfortably min/max their training.

If I did my maths right, if you take 1) a "plan" newbye with 20/20 on primary and secondary attributes, 2) a correctly mapped char with 27/21 and 3) a correctly mapped using +5 implants with 32/26 they will train for:
1) 1800 SP x hr
2) 2250 SP x hr (+25%)
3) 2700 SP x hr (+50%)

This mean that, no matter if you are training 1x or 16x skills, no matter if you are training level 1 or level 5 of that skill, you will train respectively 1) 15,768 M, 2) 19,710 M, 3) 23,652M SP per year, and this is a huge a difference.

4M SP difference without taking into accounts implants. 4M are the SP needed to train a 16x skill (like Amarr Titan) to level V (or, of course 16 different 1x skills to level V).


Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#14 - 2015-09-03 16:55:24 UTC
Another hit against the attribute system is how many RPGs or games can you think of where your character has stats/attributes that have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on gameplay?

I'm not saying they should, but it's just completely unintuitive and boring that there's no difference between playing with a highly Charismatic character or a highly Intelligent character.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2015-09-03 17:11:31 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I'm not saying they should
I will.

I want to see one of those "EVE is Easy" videos one day where suitonia is explaining how remapping for Willpower gave a bigger window for scram kiting and led to a win.
Zihao
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-09-03 19:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Zihao
Aerasia wrote:
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I'm not saying they should
I will.

I want to see one of those "EVE is Easy" videos one day where suitonia is explaining how remapping for Willpower gave a bigger window for scram kiting and led to a win.


Wouldn't that be far more restrictive than the current system?

You're just substituting a decision that impacts future skillpoints based on your ability to keep/afford implants for some present state buff.

So screwing that up would be a lot worse since the consequence wouldn't be a year later, when you were a million sp short, but right now, when your module can't do X because you decided to try X, Y, and Z career first and they ate up all your remaps.

Again, I don't think attributes as they stand are a cool feature, but it would be hilariously ironic to replace the "needless complexity," of the attributes/training dimension with an even more complex feature that had an impact on individual ships or modules.
Avvy
Doomheim
#17 - 2015-09-03 21:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
The attribute system is fairly pointless in this game as it's only connected with the speed of learning.

Problem is mainly when characters are younger as you get stuck in training in one main attribute and a secondary. So you tend to train skills that have intelligence (main set attribute in this case) and so you tend to train in groups instead of just being able to train what you need to next without taking a large drop in efficiency.

Younger characters tend to need to switch between attributes fairly quickly and remaps don't actually help that much.


Of course with older characters the skill queue and remaps are less important.
Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2015-09-03 21:37:55 UTC
Zihao wrote:
it would be hilariously ironic to replace the "needless complexity," of the attributes/training dimension with an even more complex feature that had an impact on individual ships or modules.
I don't think "Replacing needless complexity with game impacting complexity" is the definition of "ironic" you were looking for.
Avvy
Doomheim
#19 - 2015-09-03 21:47:36 UTC
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
I think attributes make the game more interesting. All CCP needs to do is reduce the 1 year remap cycle to something shorter to satisfy the people who complain about it.



Except that won't stop people that complain about it.
Velarra
#20 - 2015-09-03 22:02:35 UTC
There is equally a circular discussion to be had involving attribute improving implants and un-docking. It typically features one side suggesting there is gratification in podding a pilot with expensive -learning- implants. Particularly if the character is younger.

The conversation then typically leads into a round of fly what you can afford to lose & use implants you can afford to lose. It is then met with a generally derided view point that suggests it's better to just stay docked up and be much more risk averse due to the learning implants a character may have installed at the time a possible fight could occur.

The issue is that a player may prefer to fly frigates or cruisers and take risks with assets that cost X. But the joy of delayed gratification tends to generate at times financially illogical decision making. Both sides of the equation end up less than pleased.

Remove attributes and the implant traits that increase them, and you remove that circle of nonsense ending up with a lot more people throwing out ships onto the field that will meet destruction. Ultimately ship destruction is more important and valuable than implants. As it consumes resources and keeps people entertained for the most part.
12Next page