These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#381 - 2012-01-22 02:29:03 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
...and would help me- a desperate carebear that got stuck in highsec forever- a great deal to have more fun in eve.

Who stuck you in hi-sec?

You did.

Without the implants, you would just find another reason to avoid pvp. If you *really* wanted to pvp, you would get a clone with +2's or +3's and go with that (if the learning implants are that important). In other words, it sounds like your just avoiding something. Maybe you aren't, but that is what it sounds like...

Zimmy Zeta wrote:
I would be free to get some casual pvp in lowsec whenever I want, that's all that matters to me.

Have a nice day.

Your free to do so now, but apparently, training > fun for you. Hell - I've spent weeks in a vanilla +2 clone when I was learning about 0.0. It is possible.



And fun...


Again, not supported. Choices/consequences are a good thing. Fewer choices/fewer consequences is a bad thing (imho).

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#382 - 2012-01-22 08:18:34 UTC
RockyID wrote:
Learning implants discourage playing the game ("having fun") and instead turn it into a paint drying simulator where players are discouraged from going out on that enjoyable destroyer op because "noo my +5s".


I keep scrubbing, but your eyes.... their gaze is like a filth that will never come off.



@OP. Supported. Because, like it or not, learning implants stop people from having certain types of fun. I've got the finances to support going on suicide frig roams in 2 +4s and whatever fitting implants I've got, but I know plenty of people who don't. And I think that's part of the reason BC gangs are so popular. They give you that slow paced fight that keeps your pod alive.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#383 - 2012-01-22 08:19:37 UTC
Shaera Taam wrote:

oh, and i secretly think the guys in my corp get a little rise out of it when they hear on TS that their only verified female corp-mate is 'flying naked'
Roll


I'm not sure your corpies would appreciate you describing them as such.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#384 - 2012-02-01 12:00:19 UTC
Currently the implant process contitutes a significant isk sink to the game with the LP payments going to the NPCs, how do you propose to balance the impact to the economy with simply removing them?

Side note: Maybe add an insurance process for implants akin to ships? In theory also an extra helpful game ISK sink. This would help to irradicate some of the risk aversion associated with implant use.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#385 - 2012-02-01 14:02:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Vertisce Soritenshi
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Currently the implant process contitutes a significant isk sink to the game with the LP payments going to the NPCs, how do you propose to balance the impact to the economy with simply removing them?

Side note: Maybe add an insurance process for implants akin to ships? In theory also an extra helpful game ISK sink. This would help to irradicate some of the risk aversion associated with implant use.


You have a valid point. CCP proposed the idea to the CSM so I bet they have an idea ready. Personally I would say that removing learning implants will encourage more PvP. The increased loss of ships will spur the purchase of new ships which in turn moves the economy all around. It is quite possible that the removal of learning implants itself can be the payoff. I know many people who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose and then replace. Take that out of the equation and they would go out and either kill a bunch of other ships or lose their own.

I would say no to the insurance idea. We really don't need to break that anymore than it already is. Frankly I am to the point where I believe insurance shouldn't even exist. What company in their right mind insures something that is being taken out to be deliberately put in danger with such a high risk of damage?

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Velicitia
XS Tech
#386 - 2012-02-01 16:18:29 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
... who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose ...



you have to be *REALLY* unlucky to lose a pod in empire space. A billion isk in implants isn't exactly that much, a HG slave set will take up a fair portion of that (if not the whole thing), and people PVP with those ...

Taking out learning implants won't make people PVP ... they'll then cry that they can't PVP because of how expensive it is to replace their ships (which you lose a LOT more than pods).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#387 - 2012-02-01 16:53:08 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Currently the implant process contitutes a significant isk sink to the game with the LP payments going to the NPCs, how do you propose to balance the impact to the economy with simply removing them?

Side note: Maybe add an insurance process for implants akin to ships? In theory also an extra helpful game ISK sink. This would help to irradicate some of the risk aversion associated with implant use.


You have a valid point. CCP proposed the idea to the CSM so I bet they have an idea ready. Personally I would say that removing learning implants will encourage more PvP. The increased loss of ships will spur the purchase of new ships which in turn moves the economy all around. It is quite possible that the removal of learning implants itself can be the payoff. I know many people who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose and then replace. Take that out of the equation and they would go out and either kill a bunch of other ships or lose their own.


The buying and trading of ships only transfers isk around it is not a sink to the game.

Quote:
I would say no to the insurance idea. We really don't need to break that anymore than it already is. Frankly I am to the point where I believe insurance shouldn't even exist. What company in their right mind insures something that is being taken out to be deliberately put in danger with such a high risk of damage?


So like combat ships?

Personally I think the suggestion of insurance for implants is well placed and would contribute a much needed significant drain to the ISK pot in the game.

Bounty Hunting - Soon (™): Retribution (Winter 2012)

It's just criminal - Smuggling
Tekashi Kovacs
Golfclap Inc
#388 - 2012-02-01 18:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Tekashi Kovacs
The only problem I see is what would happen to pirate implants? You guys better post some ideas, how to fix them.

They could be simply moved to 6-10 slots (omega removed), but with removal of their +3 att stat they would become kinda weak, no? They could be boosted, by replacing their +att bonus with something else OR increasing their other bonus (not recommended).

1-5 slots could be left untouched eventually, just for pirate implants purpose - is it worth?

I personally would like pirate implants to become some kind of permanent boosters, that "enchants" any other hardwire implants with their 2nd effect. So basically you could buy, lets say, snakes and enchant your 6-10 hardwires with them. they both would be lost with pod ofc.

And good topic is good topic, I support.
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
#389 - 2012-02-01 18:19:05 UTC
I strong DO NOT support this.

Implants represent a risk vs reward....these should be kept in eve.

I fly with 3+'s in 0.0 and 4+in high. I balance that out according the reward vs risk I take.
Giving everyone 5+ would be silly.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#390 - 2012-02-01 18:35:38 UTC
I kinda like this idea. but there is one huge downside.

attribute implants are a huge isk sink. many many players believe a full set of +5 implants is an absolute must. Personally I run with +4s as I can get a full set of +4s for the price of a single +5. but As I said they are a big isk sink.

With the inflation I have seen in game in the last two years(mostly over the last 6 months) isk sinks need to be added not taken away, or we risk inflation raising the entry level of general game play above what a new player can afford.
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#391 - 2012-02-01 18:43:04 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
... who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose ...



you have to be *REALLY* unlucky to lose a pod in empire space. A billion isk in implants isn't exactly that much, a HG slave set will take up a fair portion of that (if not the whole thing), and people PVP with those ...

Taking out learning implants won't make people PVP ... they'll then cry that they can't PVP because of how expensive it is to replace their ships (which you lose a LOT more than pods).

Really? I recall seeing a lot of threads about people being ganked in highsec. Heck I have been podded on a gate from smartbombs in lowsec before while traveling in a shuttle. Some people who live in WH space run with high value implants and avoid PVP at all costs. I am sure there are those that do the same in nullsec. But yes...people will always find new reasons to ***** and complain about something.

I haven't had any implants in my character for 2 months now. I live and run out of WH space. I have no jumpclone option. I could spend another 400 mil for a set of +4's but I just don't care to. The bonus to my training time just isn't that valuable to me. Each to their own.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2012-02-01 18:47:06 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Currently the implant process contitutes a significant isk sink to the game with the LP payments going to the NPCs, how do you propose to balance the impact to the economy with simply removing them?

Side note: Maybe add an insurance process for implants akin to ships? In theory also an extra helpful game ISK sink. This would help to irradicate some of the risk aversion associated with implant use.


You have a valid point. CCP proposed the idea to the CSM so I bet they have an idea ready. Personally I would say that removing learning implants will encourage more PvP. The increased loss of ships will spur the purchase of new ships which in turn moves the economy all around. It is quite possible that the removal of learning implants itself can be the payoff. I know many people who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose and then replace. Take that out of the equation and they would go out and either kill a bunch of other ships or lose their own.


The buying and trading of ships only transfers isk around it is not a sink to the game.

Quote:
I would say no to the insurance idea. We really don't need to break that anymore than it already is. Frankly I am to the point where I believe insurance shouldn't even exist. What company in their right mind insures something that is being taken out to be deliberately put in danger with such a high risk of damage?


So like combat ships?

Personally I think the suggestion of insurance for implants is well placed and would contribute a much needed significant drain to the ISK pot in the game.


Can you clarify for me then how buying new implants IS an ISK sink? Every implant I have purchases has been from another player...not an NPC.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#393 - 2012-02-01 18:53:56 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Can you clarify for me then how buying new implants IS an ISK sink? Every implant I have purchases has been from another player...not an NPC.


The implants are sourced from LP stores, and cost a certain amount of LP and ISK.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Velicitia
XS Tech
#394 - 2012-02-01 19:14:57 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
... who will refuse to PvP because they have a billion ISK in implants in their head they don't want to lose ...



you have to be *REALLY* unlucky to lose a pod in empire space. A billion isk in implants isn't exactly that much, a HG slave set will take up a fair portion of that (if not the whole thing), and people PVP with those ...

Taking out learning implants won't make people PVP ... they'll then cry that they can't PVP because of how expensive it is to replace their ships (which you lose a LOT more than pods).

Really? I recall seeing a lot of threads about people being ganked in highsec. Heck I have been podded on a gate from smartbombs in lowsec before while traveling in a shuttle. Some people who live in WH space run with high value implants and avoid PVP at all costs. I am sure there are those that do the same in nullsec. But yes...people will always find new reasons to ***** and complain about something.



Ganked in hisec != podded.
Running into a discogeddon on a gate is "unlucky".

I never said *everyone* PvP'd with HG slaves ... but there are people who do. It all depends on what they can afford to lose.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Benedic
EVE University
Ivy League
#395 - 2012-02-01 19:29:44 UTC
I support this because it's a pain in the ass to replace them when I die (which I do, a lot)!
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#396 - 2012-02-01 19:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Vertisce Soritenshi
Velicitia wrote:

Ganked in hisec != podded.
Running into a discogeddon on a gate is "unlucky".

I never said *everyone* PvP'd with HG slaves ... but there are people who do. It all depends on what they can afford to lose.

I think you need to realize that not every pod gets away in highsec. People are podded in highsec probably a lot more than you believe them to be. And luck has nothing to do with it.

Andski wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Can you clarify for me then how buying new implants IS an ISK sink? Every implant I have purchases has been from another player...not an NPC.


The implants are sourced from LP stores, and cost a certain amount of LP and ISK.

Ah...I don't exactly use the LP store. I thought they could be created from blueprints. That makes sense then. I suppose more ISK sinks are always needed so removing learning implants would create a loss in ISK sinks. I may have to rethink my support of this thread.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Velicitia
XS Tech
#397 - 2012-02-01 20:49:10 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Velicitia wrote:

Ganked in hisec != podded.
Running into a discogeddon on a gate is "unlucky".

I never said *everyone* PvP'd with HG slaves ... but there are people who do. It all depends on what they can afford to lose.

I think you need to realize that not every pod gets away in highsec. People are podded in highsec probably a lot more than you believe them to be. And luck has nothing to do with it.



OK, there's also the "pvp newbie" crowd ...

we need CCP Diagoras to get us the stats on ship losses overall in hisec, and compare that to subsequent pod losses to really get a decent metric. However, pods insta-warp off, so you should be able to GTFO to a safe (or the star, or a planet) most of the time.

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#398 - 2012-02-01 20:53:10 UTC
I would agree. The only way to truly know would be the stats. I agree that while pods insta warp that people should be able to get away but insta locking ships and smartbombs sometimes prevent this. I won't mention the AFK deaths because those ones deserve to be podded.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Velicitia
XS Tech
#399 - 2012-02-01 21:25:32 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
I would agree. The only way to truly know would be the stats. I agree that while pods insta warp that people should be able to get away but insta locking ships and smartbombs sometimes prevent this. I won't mention the AFK deaths because those ones deserve to be podded.



On the issue of smartbombs, it's pretty rare that you're going to find someone with those in PvP situations. Much less so in hisec, because if you hit a non WT, or the station, or a gate gun ... and CONCORD is going to come and say "hi". I mean, sure, it's possible that a domi or other droneboat may have one or two fit, but you have to be really careful about using them... and the range isn't exactly far.

Insta-locking ships still take a second or so to lock you, and that really comes down to luck as to who ticks first (the person trying to GTFO, or the point on the instalock).

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#400 - 2012-02-01 23:45:11 UTC
not supported.

really, implants prevent ship to ship combat? so what. PvP is not and never limited ship destruction. Your argument is immediately INVALID. Every aspect of the game is confrontation.

Industry implants. I need to compete against other producers of blueprints. Implants for copy speed, material research and time research. And why would I risk these on a roam? Is the intention that these too be removed because a vocal minority fails to understand levels of adversal play?

I choose to take the risk of implants, for a greater reward.

Is the sandbox so limited for some, they can only see the kicking of castles?

Your insipid argument could be extended to expensive Mindlinks being risk adverse? Or an expensive set used for probe scanning and exploration? Remove those too, because these pilots choose not engage ship to ship?

So where does it end?