Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because numbers.

I haz bigger numbers, thus I haz bigger E-peen.

I mean, a lot of us were trying to be polite and use direct counters to the suggestion to point out that it was a bad idea, but yeah... This is basically what it boils down to. E-peen and leveling up.

Let's say I use it in high-sec missioning?

There is a problem, but you guys have tons of reasons to oversee it. I wonder what you told, back when there were arguments about other training books... For you, removals were needless because all people need to do is continue to live with mistakes and have fun right?

Good for you, but you will have had no 'influence' whatsoever on the game, except putting some loot on the market (if you bother looting) and buying some shinies for your missioning boat (if you wanted to).

Your lower risk gave you a personal reward (great!) but didn't give you a real advantage over other players.

I can see both sides of this, the skill gains through having learning implants are significant enough that when I come to KS I jump to an enhanced clone almost immediately, and this does limit my behaviour and choices as to when I come back to "riskier" areas.
I am not convinced that is a BAD thing as such, but it does restrict my behaviour to a degree, and it certainly does not enhance my play experience in any way I can think off, it is just another thing to consider .

I wonder if we currently had a fixed training speed, and CCP suggested that to retain that training speed we now needed to have +5 implants, whether that would be a popular choice, and whether people would welcome it?

I think the answer would be burning monuments.

So switching it back to current reality, why is it suddenly a good idea for learning implants to exist?

It adds little benefit to the game, and it is really just a remnant of simpler times, an anomaly, a vestigial unneeded mechanic that has no reason to remain.

But every change will have those that resist it, no matter how unsatisfactory a mechanic it is.


So the real question is what value does it bring to the game, if any.

But either way, don't care that much, just one more less than satisfactory mechanic to deal with.

If we're taking this argument to it's extreme and comparing two characters at 5 years of age, then the difference between PvP capability is nil, since anything short of a Titan or Super will only take about a year or less SP's-worth to pilot effectively.

I explained my optinion and loved to hear yours. If people are fine with it, I'm ok.
I'm at the advantageous side anyway ;)

It is *never* impossible to close the gap on an older player simply because the SP they bring to any given activity is limited to the skills that affect that activity. Had I concentrated purely on frigate and interceptor skills I would have perfect all V skills right now just the same as a 10 year old character would have for interceptors. It obviously takes longer on the larger hulls but the principle is the same. Total SP is irrelevant. How much do you think the 7.5 mil or so SP I have invested in S&I help me in combat?

I agree jumping back and forth can be a hassle. I'm so lazy I don't even have a jump clone.

Would you accept just removing +4 and +5 'pure learning' implants, without any attribute increase?

This is just tossing something out there, as I'm neither here nor there regarding learning implants, but I think the point he's trying to make is that, while yes, the 5-year PvE'er will get trounced quite handily by the 5-year PvP'er, the PvE'er can improve and grow their RL skills until the two are essentially equal (while the PvP'er will always be ahead, the curve for PvP tapers off as time goes on, making the difference fairly negligible after a length of time). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the PvP'er in terms of SP.