These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Exploring The Character Bazaar & Skill Trading

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#3881 - 2015-10-19 23:07:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
If this was just about getting the new guys getting into bigger\better ships quicker then why not this below? It doesn't damage one of the key principles in EVE, favours no-one but new guys as there's an age limit and no massive jack in PLEX prices.

This, this right here

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

  • is already developed
  • already in game
  • would be quicker to implement
  • can't be abused by older players
  • Cerebral accelerators are destroyed upon clone-jump, but will otherwise remain, even if your capsule is destroyed.
  • They (CCP) could then spend good Dev time on bringing the Char Bazaar in-game in the UI. Thus you kill two birds with one stone and everyone wins.

Ah, there's the flaw, it doesn't require more PLEX<>Aurum so no extra income stream for literally butchering what I think is one of the key foundations of EVE Online: choices equal consequences.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Lost pages back but this:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
There are already in-game items to help new players called Cerebral Accelerators albeit with severe character age restrictions. Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


The best of which is this:

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

This booster will cease to function for pilots who have been registered for more than 7 days.
Bonuses: +17 to all attributes

+17 to ALL attributes. Give that to a new starter from Day 1 or even bump it to +25 to ALL attributes

Benefits:
It kicks in from Day 1
Training is amplified so skilling is quicker.
They don't skip the content that comes from finding your feet but get to toddle quicker
It's free from the start
You could seed more so they are more available on the market ie new player friendly corps (E-UNI etc) can buy them,
Seed them in Data\Relic\Combat sites or in special mission drops\DED sites\COSMOS
It stimulates the economy
You still have the choices equal consequences so key to EVE Online
Free the dev time required for the '£££ for SP' and bring the Character Bazaar in-house to the EVE UI

Drawbacks
No increase demand for PLEX\Aurum so price doesn't increase
You'd have to write a new tutorial on boosters\implants\accelerators or have Aura tell them about the thing that's in their head.

Just some thoughts I'd had. Carry on Big smile

EDIT:

And this from the wiki:

Please note: Cerebral accelerators are destroyed upon clone-jump, but will otherwise remain, even if your capsule is destroyed.

If that doesn't encourage some PvP then what will. All other implants apart from 'Golden Pods' are destroyed on pod-kill.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
#3882 - 2015-10-19 23:07:42 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
No it IS different, but some folks can't or don't want to see the difference.
Yes, it's different, in ways of unquantifiable significance of consequence on a per character and buyer basis. Yet still it's commonly practiced suggesting that those consequences are not highly significant and thus not meaningful enough to be a strong counterargument.


Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I really wanted to I could have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense? Would it completely destroy the whole concept of chess?


That analogy... doesn't even come close to mapping onto the proposal being discussed. In fact, I don't think it's possible to make a chess-based analogy that would. Chess is a turn-based board game that has been refined over the centuries explicitly to be fair. The only difference between players is supposed to be player skill, and a coin flip to decide who goes first. EVE is never fair. Any argument against the new system that is based the new system being "unfair" is going to fail because we're talking about EVE.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#3883 - 2015-10-19 23:13:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tiberius Heth
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I'd really want to I'd have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense?
The scenario you created doesn't actually parallel this idea.

Sure, there is a distinction you created, but it doesn't match the distinction created here. Basically there was and can be no game in which you didn't start with the second queen, because you can't turn your SP off, thus there was no "even" game to begin with.

Now you're saying that since you "think" you would have beaten him even if he had 2 queens, he shouldn't be able to because it won't make him better. But that doesn't matter because in the game we're actually playing he might want 2 queens just to have 2 queens, not to beat you specifically or anyone else. And the great thing is that he still doesn't have to pay real money. People trying to gain SP can't spend real money on it. The proposal doesn't offer that possibility, a fact which you seem to conveniently miss with great consistency.



You should probably reread what you just wrote because it makes no sense at all.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#3884 - 2015-10-19 23:17:05 UTC
Edlorna Tinebe wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
No it IS different, but some folks can't or don't want to see the difference.
Yes, it's different, in ways of unquantifiable significance of consequence on a per character and buyer basis. Yet still it's commonly practiced suggesting that those consequences are not highly significant and thus not meaningful enough to be a strong counterargument.


Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I really wanted to I could have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense? Would it completely destroy the whole concept of chess?


That analogy... doesn't even come close to mapping onto the proposal being discussed. In fact, I don't think it's possible to make a chess-based analogy that would. Chess is a turn-based board game that has been refined over the centuries explicitly to be fair. The only difference between players is supposed to be player skill, and a coin flip to decide who goes first. EVE is never fair. Any argument against the new system that is based the new system being "unfair" is going to fail because we're talking about EVE.


I see you're avoiding the actual intention of the analogy and purely, feverishly, focus on semantics. I wonder why that is.
Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
#3885 - 2015-10-19 23:18:11 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I'd really want to I'd have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense?
The scenario you created doesn't actually parallel this idea.

Sure, there is a distinction you created, but it doesn't match the distinction created here. Basically there was and can be no game in which you didn't start with the second queen, because you can't turn your SP off, thus there was no "even" game to begin with.

Now you're saying that since you "think" you would have beaten him even if he had 2 queens, he shouldn't be able to because it won't make him better. But that doesn't matter because in the game we're actually playing he might want 2 queens just to have 2 queens, not to beat you specifically or anyone else. And the great thing is that he still doesn't have to pay real money. People trying to gain SP can't spend real money on it. The proposal doesn't offer that possibility, a fact which you seem to conveniently miss with great consistency.



You should probably reread what you just wrote because it makes no sense at all.


What he said makes more sense than your original statement. In your (horrible) analogy, skill points = second queen. In EVE, the person who's played longer will always have more skillpoints than his opponent. Therefore, the person who has played chess the longest will always have more queens than the new guy, even if the new guy is a better chess player.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3886 - 2015-10-19 23:18:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
If this was just about getting the new guys getting into bigger\better ships quicker then why not this below? It doesn't damage of the key principles in EVE, favours no-one but new guys as there's an age limit and no massive jack in PLEX prices.

This, this right here

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

  • is already developed
  • already in game
  • would be quicker to implement
  • can't be abused by older players
  • They (CCP) could then spend good Dev time on bringing the Char Bazaar in game the UI. Thus you kill two brids with one stone and everyone wins.

Ah, there's the flaw, it doesn't require more PLEX<>Aurum so no extra income stream for literally butchering what I think is one of the key foundations of EVE Online: choices equal consequences.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Lost pages back but this:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
There are already in-game items to help new players called Cerebral Accelerators albeit with severe character age restrictions. Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


The best of which is this:

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

This booster will cease to function for pilots who have been registered for more than 7 days.
Bonuses: +17 to all attributes

+17 to ALL attributes. Give that to a new starter from Day 1 or even bump it to +25 to ALL attributes

Benefits:
It kicks in from Day 1
Training is amplified so skilling is quicker.
They don't skip the content that comes from finding your feet but get to toddle quicker
It's free from the start
You could seed more so they are available on the market ie new player friendly corps (E-UNI etc) can buy them in Data\Relic\Combat sites or in special mission drops\DED sites\COSMOS
It stimulates the economy
You still have the choices equal consequences so key to EVE Online
Free the dev time required for the £££ for SP and bring the Character Bazaar in-house to the EVE UI

Drawbacks
No increase demand for PLEX\Aurum so price doesn't increase
You'd have to write a new tutorial on boosters\implants\accelerators or have Aura tell them about the thing that's in their head.

Just some thoughts I'd had. Carry on Big smile

EDIT:

And this from the wiki:

Please note: Cerebral accelerators are destroyed upon clone-jump, but will otherwise remain, even if your capsule is destroyed.

If that doesn't encourage some PvP then what will. All other implants apart from 'Golden Pods' are destroyed on pod-kill.
This idea doesn't actually solve the issues the proposal was designed to address.

It doesn't:
a) Complement the character Bazaar functionality in any way
b) Supplant the need for large investments to procure a more functional character
c) Prevent abuses from older players creating low SP alts with greater speed with little additional cost
d) Stimulate the economy due to limited time use and thus no lasting demand (which invalidates their worth as drops)
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3887 - 2015-10-19 23:20:25 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
You should probably reread what you just wrote because it makes no sense at all.
You should work on your comprehension. It's funny how someone without your bias understood it, but you can't.
Tiberius Heth
Doomheim
#3888 - 2015-10-19 23:22:44 UTC
Edlorna Tinebe wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I'd really want to I'd have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense?
The scenario you created doesn't actually parallel this idea.

Sure, there is a distinction you created, but it doesn't match the distinction created here. Basically there was and can be no game in which you didn't start with the second queen, because you can't turn your SP off, thus there was no "even" game to begin with.

Now you're saying that since you "think" you would have beaten him even if he had 2 queens, he shouldn't be able to because it won't make him better. But that doesn't matter because in the game we're actually playing he might want 2 queens just to have 2 queens, not to beat you specifically or anyone else. And the great thing is that he still doesn't have to pay real money. People trying to gain SP can't spend real money on it. The proposal doesn't offer that possibility, a fact which you seem to conveniently miss with great consistency.



You should probably reread what you just wrote because it makes no sense at all.


What he said makes more sense than your original statement. In your (horrible) analogy, skill points = second queen. In EVE, the person who's played longer will always have more skillpoints than his opponent. Therefore, the person who has played chess the longest will always have more queens than the new guy, even if the new guy is a better chess player.


You're, again, missing the point. That queen is an advantage outside the normal rules. NOT SP as such. But keep trying.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#3889 - 2015-10-19 23:23:04 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
No it IS different, but some folks can't or don't want to see the difference.
Yes, it's different, in ways of unquantifiable significance of consequence on a per character and buyer basis. Yet still it's commonly practiced suggesting that those consequences are not highly significant and thus not meaningful enough to be a strong counterargument.


Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I really wanted to I could have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense? Would it completely destroy the whole concept of chess?
The third game (and every game after it) you lost because your opponents manufacturing line hammered out seven rooks to replace the pawns he salvaged. Then hired a third party to remote rep all this pieces.

Maybe if you hadn't spent all your time whining and learned all the rules, you'd have fared better.

Mr Epeen Cool
Leonardo Adami
Doomheim
#3890 - 2015-10-19 23:24:58 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
If this was just about getting the new guys getting into bigger\better ships quicker then why not this below? It doesn't damage one of the key principles in EVE, favours no-one but new guys as there's an age limit and no massive jack in PLEX prices.

This, this right here

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

  • is already developed
  • already in game
  • would be quicker to implement
  • can't be abused by older players
  • Cerebral accelerators are destroyed upon clone-jump, but will otherwise remain, even if your capsule is destroyed.
  • They (CCP) could then spend good Dev time on bringing the Char Bazaar in-game in the UI. Thus you kill two birds with one stone and everyone wins.

Ah, there's the flaw, it doesn't require more PLEX<>Aurum so no extra income stream for literally butchering what I think is one of the key foundations of EVE Online: choices equal consequences.

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Lost pages back but this:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
There are already in-game items to help new players called Cerebral Accelerators albeit with severe character age restrictions. Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


The best of which is this:

Advanced Cerebral Accelerator

This booster will cease to function for pilots who have been registered for more than 7 days.
Bonuses: +17 to all attributes

+17 to ALL attributes. Give that to a new starter from Day 1 or even bump it to +25 to ALL attributes

Benefits:
It kicks in from Day 1
Training is amplified so skilling is quicker.
They don't skip the content that comes from finding your feet but get to toddle quicker
It's free from the start
You could seed more so they are more available on the market ie new player friendly corps (E-UNI etc) can buy them,
Seed them in Data\Relic\Combat sites or in special mission drops\DED sites\COSMOS
It stimulates the economy
You still have the choices equal consequences so key to EVE Online
Free the dev time required for the '£££ for SP' and bring the Character Bazaar in-house to the EVE UI

Drawbacks
No increase demand for PLEX\Aurum so price doesn't increase
You'd have to write a new tutorial on boosters\implants\accelerators or have Aura tell them about the thing that's in their head.

Just some thoughts I'd had. Carry on Big smile

EDIT:

And this from the wiki:

Please note: Cerebral accelerators are destroyed upon clone-jump, but will otherwise remain, even if your capsule is destroyed.

If that doesn't encourage some PvP then what will. All other implants apart from 'Golden Pods' are destroyed on pod-kill.


I'd like to say I'm all for CCP's new skillpoint idea. However I like this one too. Instead of limiting this accelerator to the age of the character I'd like it be capped to a certain amount of skillpoints. Ideally have it be +25 attributes up to 30mil skillpoints then drop to +17 up to 50 mil skillpoints after that it loses its effect due to the amount of intense training the capsuleer has gone through or something to that effect.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3891 - 2015-10-19 23:27:07 UTC
Tiberius Heth wrote:
You're, again, missing the point. That queen is an advantage outside the normal rules. NOT SP as such. But keep trying.
Then your analogy is wholly irrelevant. What's being debated is the packaging and sale of SP within EvE. Chess parallels with no applicability are completely meaningless.
Edlorna Tinebe
The Elerium Trust
#3892 - 2015-10-19 23:27:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Edlorna Tinebe
Mr Epeen wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Tiberius Heth wrote:
No it IS different, but some folks can't or don't want to see the difference.
Yes, it's different, in ways of unquantifiable significance of consequence on a per character and buyer basis. Yet still it's commonly practiced suggesting that those consequences are not highly significant and thus not meaningful enough to be a strong counterargument.


Lets play two games of chess:

- first one I win because I put in more effort and I'm simply better

- second one I win because I'm STILL better as such but I also switched out a pawn for a second queen before the game even started, making it all a bit silly


Technically it's the same, I won both times because I'm "better" but that second win is somehow not cool. If you WANT to ignore that switch, because it suits ones agenda, then you could just state that the outcome is the same because the players are the same but we both know that there's a "that's just not right" thingy going on.


On top of that I had to pay money to make that queen switch and if I really wanted to I could have replaced all pawns with queens. Would you still enjoy playing against me and would you still have faith in the world chess federation for allowing that "buy a queen" nonsense? Would it completely destroy the whole concept of chess?
The third game (and every game after it) you lost because your opponents manufacturing line hammered out seven rooks to replace the pawns he salvaged. Then hired a third party to remote rep all this pieces.

Maybe if you hadn't spent all your time whining and learned all the rules, you'd have fared better.

Mr Epeen Cool


Hilarious AND on-point!

But what if the guy with seven rooks has more time to play chess than the guy who bought a second queen? That wouldn't be fair either. The rooks guy is building rooks all day, while the Queen guy has to work a real job all day. So the Queen guy buys a second king that he keeps back on the highsec board, just in case he loses the primary king. Rooks guy teams up with his three buddies, each of whom gets a king of their own, and they collectively get three turns each turn the Queen guy gets, no matter how many queens he buys. So they roflstomp the Queen guy.

Wait. What the hell were we talking about?
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#3893 - 2015-10-19 23:29:44 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This idea doesn't actually solve the issues the proposal was designed to address.

It doesn't:
a) Complement the character Bazaar functionality in any way
b) Supplant the need for large investments to procure a more functional character
c) Prevent abuses from older players creating low SP alts with greater speed with no additional cost
d) Stimulate the economy due to limited time use and thus no lasting demand (which invalidates their worth as drops)


a) How does PLEX\Aurum for SP complement the character Bazaar at all? I've never been a fan of the Char Bazaar (yes I see why CCP brought it in) but with that there is choice and consequence. Like everything else in EVE, you research, you learn and you grow.
b) More functional is pretty much saying on-demand but this does accelerate the learning rate
c) This 'proposal' is so much more open to abuse by older players. At least this shuts the door of after a while
d) If there's player turnover (which there is) and they get the first one for free they may just grab some for the other 2 char slots. People will always make alts to specialise in certain things, spies, PvP and PvE etc. Hell, I've even used these for a few alts I wanted to get up to speed quick.

Isn't that their purpose? Wasn't that the intention when they were introduced?

Still haven't said why using existing functionality as presented is worse than this 'proposal' though.

So when these new players that buy the SP injectors get to 50mil SP and then have the loooong trains how many do you think are going to stick around? It's like flying around in a Leopard and then you get put in a Mastodon and everything seems 4 times as slow.But you've done it on the back of one of the things that a lot of people who have stuck around for years value.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3894 - 2015-10-19 23:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This idea doesn't actually solve the issues the proposal was designed to address.

It doesn't:
a) Complement the character Bazaar functionality in any way
b) Supplant the need for large investments to procure a more functional character
c) Prevent abuses from older players creating low SP alts with greater speed with no additional cost
d) Stimulate the economy due to limited time use and thus no lasting demand (which invalidates their worth as drops)


a) How does PLEX\Aurum for SP complement the character Bazaar at all? I've never been a fan of the Char Bazaar (yes I see why CCP brought it in) but with that there is choice and consequence. Like everything else in EVE, you research, you learn and you grow.
b) More functional is pretty much saying on-demand but this does accelerate the learning rate
c) This 'proposal' is so much more open to abuse by older players. At least this shuts the door of after a while
d) If there's player turnover (which there is) and they get the first one for free they may just grab some for the other 2 char slots. People will always make alts to specialise in certain things, spies, PvP and PvE etc. Hell, I've even used these for a few alts I wanted to get up to speed quick.

Isn't that their purpose? Wasn't that the intention when they were introduced?

Still haven't said why using existing functionality as presented is worse than this 'proposal' though.

So when these new players that buy the SP injectors get to 50mil SP and then have the loooong trains how many do you think are going to stick around? It's like flying around in a Leopard and then you get put in a Mastodon and everything seems 4 times as slow.But you've done it on the back of one of the things that a lot of people who have stuck around for years value.

a) This isn't PLEX/AUR for SP. A number of people keep characterizing it as that, though they do so incorrectly as you can't get SP by spending PLEX/AUR (And the argument that one might need PLEX/AUR to afford it makes everything in game above x isk pricepoint P2W).
b) That wasn't a response to the actual objection I brought up, but that aside the goal here isn't to accelerate overall training and isn't targetted at just characters under 7 days old for ~2 weeks of normal training.
c) No, it's not, the diminishing returns pretty much ensure that
d) So we have a total possible demand of 1 per char, which is exactly what I based the objection of being economically worthless on

And yeah, that's the intention of the accelerator, NOT the proposal. Those don't overlap (which is as exactly why existing functionality is worse than the proposal at doing what the proposal is trying to do - that's just plain not what it does).

And you think when after 7 days players see their training speed half and then that they can't get it back while still around 2m SP, with a fraction of the possibilities of 50m SP and they'll stick around?
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#3895 - 2015-10-19 23:49:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Maximus Aerelius
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
This idea doesn't actually solve the issues the proposal was designed to address.

It doesn't:
a) Complement the character Bazaar functionality in any way
b) Supplant the need for large investments to procure a more functional character
c) Prevent abuses from older players creating low SP alts with greater speed with no additional cost
d) Stimulate the economy due to limited time use and thus no lasting demand (which invalidates their worth as drops)


a) How does PLEX\Aurum for SP complement the character Bazaar at all? I've never been a fan of the Char Bazaar (yes I see why CCP brought it in) but with that there is choice and consequence. Like everything else in EVE, you research, you learn and you grow.
b) More functional is pretty much saying on-demand but this does accelerate the learning rate
c) This 'proposal' is so much more open to abuse by older players. At least this shuts the door of after a while
d) If there's player turnover (which there is) and they get the first one for free they may just grab some for the other 2 char slots. People will always make alts to specialise in certain things, spies, PvP and PvE etc. Hell, I've even used these for a few alts I wanted to get up to speed quick.

Isn't that their purpose? Wasn't that the intention when they were introduced?

Still haven't said why using existing functionality as presented is worse than this 'proposal' though.

So when these new players that buy the SP injectors get to 50mil SP and then have the loooong trains how many do you think are going to stick around? It's like flying around in a Leopard and then you get put in a Mastodon and everything seems 4 times as slow.But you've done it on the back of one of the things that a lot of people who have stuck around for years value.

a) This isn't PLEX/AUR for SP. A number of people keep characterizing it as that, though they do so incorrectly as you can't get SP by spending PLEX/AUR (And the argument that one might need PLEX/AUR to afford it makes everything in game above x isk pricepoint P2W).
b) That wasn't a response to the actual objection I brought up, but that aside the goal here isn't to accelerate overall training and isn't targetted at just characters under 7 days old for ~2 weeks of normal training.
c) No, it's not, the diminishing returns pretty much ensure that
d) So we have a total possible demand of 1 per char, which is exactly what I based the objection of being economically worthless on

And yeah, that's the intention of the accelerator, NOT the proposal. Those don't overlap (which is as exactly why existing functionality is worse than the proposal at doing what the proposal is trying to do - that's just plain not what it does).

And you think when after 7 days players see their training speed half and then that they can't get it back while still around 2m SP, with a fraction of the possibilities of 50m SP and they'll stick around?


Seeing that you've missed my 'quote within a quote' the Accelerator idea includes "lifting the bar":

Maximus Aerelius wrote:
...Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


Essentially you lift the bar to weeks\months or total SP on char (taken form Leonardo Adami's post). The fact is that it's IG already, isn't off much use to the ISK or RL rich as you can't use it past X days\weeks or, if altered, Total SP on Char.

As for the one per char, sure, I see you're thinking there. But if it lasted X weeks\months the price on them may rise but if they are drops then supply might increase. The new guys would know about them, maybe some would go Exploration Career to find them and use\sell them to get better ships.

Basically, the thought was: It does what it says on the tin.

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3896 - 2015-10-19 23:56:13 UTC
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
...Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


Essentially you lift the bar to weeks\months or total SP on char. The fact is that it's IG already, isn't off much use to the ISK or RL rich as you can't use it past X days\weeks or, if altered, Total SP on Char.

As for the one per char, sure, I see you're thinking there. But if it lasted X weeks\months the price on them may rise but if they are drops then supply might increase. The new guys would know about them, maybe some would go Exploration Career to find them and use\sell them to get better ships.

Basically, the thought was: It does what it says on the tin.

Yup, I missed that part. That wrenches open the possibilities for abuse by older players for low SP alt creation. Also I'm not concerned about high prices, rather the prices will be low to the point of being worthless with unmoved stock due to only being usable for a short period in a character's life.

Also the idea of repeat customer's is odd because the target group for this would need to spend PLEX to take advantage of more than one or waste possible time training on their still low SP characters for different ones.

But it still has no tie in or alternative to the character Bazaar in the same way learning implants don't do the same already.
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
#3897 - 2015-10-20 00:04:34 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
...Lift the bar a little more on the age that these will work at and add them a bit more to loots\DEDs\Data and\or Relic sites to make them more available. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say give them it as a starter item but link in how to use it and what it's for. There are far better ways to get new guys into ships faster than this.


Essentially you lift the bar to weeks\months or total SP on char. The fact is that it's IG already, isn't off much use to the ISK or RL rich as you can't use it past X days\weeks or, if altered, Total SP on Char.

As for the one per char, sure, I see you're thinking there. But if it lasted X weeks\months the price on them may rise but if they are drops then supply might increase. The new guys would know about them, maybe some would go Exploration Career to find them and use\sell them to get better ships.

Basically, the thought was: It does what it says on the tin.

Yup, I missed that part. That wrenches open the possibilities for abuse by older players for low SP alt creation. Also I'm not concerned about high prices, rather the prices will be low to the point of being worthless with unmoved stock due to only being usable for a short period in a character's life.

Also the idea of repeat customer's is odd because the target group for this would need to spend PLEX to take advantage of more than one or waste possible time training on their still low SP characters for different ones.

But it still has no tie in or alternative to the character Bazaar in the same way learning implants don't do the same already.


I have to say some valid points there.

As for spending PLEX, I imagine (taken from the proposal) that rather than spending the price of PLEX + SP Packet (unless you're selling your SP package at a loss) then it's ISK better spent on MCT and a Cerebral Accelerator no? I haven't done the maths on +17 on all attributes for training but I'm sure someone will.

Combine that +17 (I'm going with this as that's what it is currently) over X period and I'm pretty sure you'd get more SP than a SP Packet costing 1.3bn + SP package (500,000 unallocated skillpoints) cost no?

[b]Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee" Undocking - More Routes Out of Station[/b] Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up!
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3898 - 2015-10-20 00:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Maximus Aerelius wrote:
I have to say some valid points there.

As for spending PLEX, I imagine (taken from the proposal) that rather than spending the price of PLEX + SP Packet (unless you're selling your SP package at a loss) then it's ISK better spent on MCT and a Cerebral Accelerator no? I haven't done the maths on +17 on all attributes for training but I'm sure someone will.

Combine that +17 (I'm going with this as that's what it is currently) over X period and I'm pretty sure you'd get more SP than a SP Packet costing 1.3bn + SP package (500,000 unallocated skillpoints) cost no?

The AUR price of an extractor isn't known yet, so best we can guess is that SP packets should be around 1/4th of a PLEX + extractor cost. At current conversions that's ~300m + the AUR cost converted to isk (and that value being equal to a PLEX is completely ridiculous to the point of being IMHO beyond entertaining). That's the cost were looking at.

On the other hand a month long CE @ +17 attributes (which may also be a bad idea due to CCP seemingly wanting to phase out attributes) is +1530SP/H. That's an added 1,101,600 SP over 30days on top of what you would otherwise have, assuming no implants, less with implants. It's cheaper as you propose, or should be anyways, but potentially slower with a much lower cap even before diminishing returns kick in on the SP trading proposal.

I'll grant it's more accessible, but less effective.

Edit: Because looking at the post where PLEX was in caps in some locations and not others bugged me.
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3899 - 2015-10-20 01:35:20 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Canadian Fire wrote:
All things considered it's not really such a horrible idea, but I still don't like it. If it is to be implemented, I would like to see a hard cap on it. IE you cannot inject SP on characters with over XX number of SP. Or some kind of balancing mechanic to make it so a day 1 char can get a big advantage, yes, but can't jump straight to all level 5 skills for $15,000 USD.
At the very least I can catch up on some SP I missed when I wasn't able to sub I suppose.


A hard cap seems to be a common request, and I think there may be some merit to that. We'll certainly look in to it. I'm not sure how to determine where that cap is though, if it's purely for prestige purposes.

On a somewhat related note, to keep some prestige without a hard cap, there may be a way to track SP gained 'naturally' versus SP gained from using unallocated skillpoints. If that's the case we could make both values available when characters apply to corporations, or people put their characters up on sites like eveboard. No promises though, it's still to early to tell.


No hard cap, No soft cap.

You have balls to finally turn this antique pseudo-progression mechanics borrowed from antique mmos over a decade ago. It serves no purpose in this game, besides creating artificial wall. It never did anything more than that.

If you want to provide wall, do it naturally with ISK - so either turn SP into market commodity complementing ships, equipment and impleants with all current flaws (bloated ranks, costly prerequisities, linear bonuses, dirt cheap skillbooks) or fix it (lower ranks, sensible prerequisities, non-linear bonuses focused on level IVs, very expensive skillbooks). You chose the former.

PART 1/2 - ABOUT SP


1) SP doesn't mean commitment
2) SP doesn't measure any actual skill in this game
3) SP is an artificial wall
4) SP pool is bloated beyond any sensible limits

Re. 1

Quote:
As you can see, this design favors skill transfers for younger characters and makes them very inefficient for older characters. We’ve designed it this way so that we protect the prestige associated with long commitment to a single character.


This is incorrect. Being commited to some character is in no way related to having a lot of SP - it's just a side effect of that. Also what about someone that was inactive for a long time ? In such case a commitment would mean sticking to such character with large SP deficiency instead of visiting character bazaar.

Being commited to character simply means playing that character and sticking to it - that's all there is to it. SP is merely a byproduct of active subscription. Congratulations there, you have been subscribed to EvE for a decade - have a nice chunk of SP !

What the hell does it have in common in any way or form with commitment / loyalty / prestige ? Absolutely nothing.

Re. 2

To be good at EvE you have to dedicate your head first and foremost - learn, practice, don't repeat mistakes (or at least repeat them as little as possible ;) ). Whether it's in-game activity of any kind, spreadsheets or tool/website development. SP is completely orthogonal to it.

Re. 3

So what really is SP ?

It's a giant artificial timesink (or a notable ISK/$$$ shortcut through the character bazaar). It starts gently, then before you even notice you need 2 years before you can be on sub-equal grounds in subset of scenarios against other people. It could be a good guidance mixed with significant ISK wall if you had decided to fix it - but you chose not to do so. And over the years it became far too bloated (see the next point).

The whole semblance of progression it "provides" was borrowed from other mmos where it was used to deliberately slow down players (read: repetitive character grind making people chase a virtual carrot(s) on a stick) with obvious aim of keeping them in game as long as possible (p2p model) with as little effort as possible. Of course it still exists in current games - only there was subtle shift from character grind to gear grind .... same **** essentially, just numbers in different place(s).

And EvE being a new mmo on the block had to have some sort of that - so we got XP bar with a twist: it bots itself.

Re. 4

The SP bloat is gigantic. It was borderline "ok" in 2003, before T2, T3, bigger ships, more stuff needing more training (and usually higher skill ranks). If X got into (t1) cruiser, then he knew others will be in (t1) cruisers. Or (t1) frigates/battleships. Not blinged T3 cruisers with full skilled OGB [purchased] alt and 1b+ in head implants. Ships/modules/implants are a matter of wealth and experience - SP is artificial wall that simply is.

A simple character with 0 skills in science/industry/exploration/guns/drones/missiles/subsystems/ships/PI - but with decently developed supporting skills (without touching capitals and without extremes - so mostly IVs, some Vs, few IIIs) is 15m+ SP one the low end. Skills that basically make you feel not like a gimp while flying, fitting or fighting - and with ability to at least field some of T2 equipment (not all, and not T3).

Go into any of the remaining fields, try to be a bit flexible (with some stuff deliberately mandating cross training - e.g. pirate ships) and 50m starts looking like a common value. You need guns, drones, missiles, ships. You're far better choosing small ships, as otherwise bigger ship/guns/drones and relevant skill ranks will make you cry in a corner (and in such case you better narrowly specialize into one race, one weapon type, one ship class - anything more or any new imbalance meta that missed your specialization - well tough luck, please "learn" again).

If anything, this can be fixed as an alternative to the proposed SP transfer changes:

continued in 2nd part

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl
Soltys
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3900 - 2015-10-20 01:36:12 UTC
If anything, this can be fixed as an alternative to the proposed SP transfer changes:


  • ranks (anything x4 and higher needs serious look at or flat out trimming to x3 - with sole exception of maybe capitals++)
  • no ship, module or skill should have V as a prerequisite, unless the prerequisite is rank 1 skill
  • make skill gains non-linear, compacting majority of possible bonus into levels I-IV, with remaining 10% going into V. So instead of current linear spacing (20%-20%-20%-20%-20%) something like 30%-25%-20%-15%-10% would be better (so for example for typical 5% bonuse per skill level, that would translate to 7.5%, 6.25%, 5%, 3.75%, 2.5%
  • hide skillbooks behind significantly bigger ISK wall - instead of SP timewall


Those 4 points if approached honestly, could make the whole SP trading a moot point - while still retaining SP concept.



PART 2 - ABOUT SP TRANSFERING


So we go commodity / market power way with SP changes. Good, then let's do it properly.

Firstly be honest and admit it's not aimed at new players. For a genuinly new player 300m+ isk is a fortune, with boring PvE "content" giving a mockery of rewards. Of course it gets better with time and experience. This feature is aimed at veterans and solid "intermediate" players that got hooked and can generate enough ISK in game for that to even be an option or liking the game enough to not be shy about throwing more $$$s at the screen. Now that we've cleared this misconception, lets move on.

Good thing overall: it shifts SP training from timesink to moneysink and ranks / prerequisities of skills (bigger SP pool for bigger stuff) fit well with "ISK rules EvE". Analogously to cost difference between t1/t2/t3/bling, smaller and bigger ships, etc.

brackets & diminishing returns


  • (0 - 5) bracket makes no sense; 5m SP is nothing (roughly 2 months + trial time) and genuinely new players generally won't be interested in it at all
  • (5 - 50) bracket; 20% penalty in the most important area for any player (see point (4) above and the issue of SP bloat) ?
  • (50 - 80) bracket; 60% penalty in area where the player will be hitting most demanding and time consuming high-rank skills ?
  • (80 - inf) bracket is arbitrary soft-cap; 300m-500m (depending on the price of AUR extractor) ISK per 50k SP ? Come on, this is insulting.


Get rid of brackets. Don't penalize high-sp characters because of confusing auto-botted SP pool with loyalty or skilled gameplay or prestige or whatever else it's commonly confused with (see points (1) - (3) above) - not even touching the subject of character bazaar (SP brothel ?). Besides, do you put soft-cap on character bazaar ?

But put some generic penalty across the board (sinks are good). Therefore what you could do is introduce skills from Neural Enchancement tree with *very expensive* skillbooks, and make players start with 100% penalty and no ability to use packs without skilling. For example:


  • neurotransport (requires some IV and maybe V skills - biology, science, etc.) rank L; allows use of SP packs; decreases penalty by 4% per level
  • neurotransport synchronization (requires neurotransport IV or V) rank M; lessens penalty by 15% per level
  • neurotransport calibration (requires neurotransport IV or V) rank N; lessens penalty by 10% per level


Adjust L/M/N as necessary to have sensible initial timewall. Set skillbook prices to have sensible initial ISKwall.

Initial skill drops (at V) penalty to 80% (at V), the next skill drops (at V) penalty from 80% to 20%; the last skill will drop penalty (at V) to 10%. Essentially 100*(1-a*4%)(1-b*15%)(1-c*10%).

This (despite introducing even more skills) merges the whole idea nicely with game mechanics.

AUR thingy's price

Just ... don't be greedy with it.

Packs already start at PLEX/4 (as 2m/month is the monthly pool of properly prepared SP farmer) - not counting 5m SP bootstrap, expected profit and AUR thingy's price.


POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE


Well, TBH if we going to have SP packs and character bazaar - then maybe also allow people to consume additional PLEXes for skill learning speedup (stackable to x10) - so we (players) can avoid trivial yet irritating logistics of making purely SP farming accounts for own use (with same endeffect) and you (CCP) don't get a barrel of pointless accounts in your db ? K.I.S.S.

Jita Flipping Inc.: Kovl & Kuvl