Player Features and Ideas Discussion

(1) It's risk averse, not adverse. Adverse is a different word, it means something different. Averse has the same root as avoid. If you are averse to something, you avoid it. Adverse means disadvantageous.

For example: Ab'del was a risk averse pilot: when he undocked and saw 27 pirates in Tornados camping the station, he realised that conditions were adverse for flying a low EHP mission Tengu, so he redocked.

(2) The boosters part of the proposal is specifically there so that players can choose to manage their level of risk. They can either use cheap boosters that will only last 72h anyway, so they're risking very little, or they can use expensive implants. Neither choice offers faster training speeds than the other. Each is useful for different conditions.

chunks?

be more specific...

Character attributes reward deferred gratification and skill plans that are years long. Implants represent a long term investment with no immediate reward if they are lost. If you decided in the first few hours that Eve was the game for you, then you are in the minority. Most people will get bored with high sec content and quit long before they see any benefit from a lengthy skill plan or the learning implants people encourage them to use to catch up.

I really don't see how that is a problem.. I DON't have to respec.. I can always just distribute my attributes evenly and then mix and match whatever skills I want regardless what they're based on. Now if I decide to stick to a plan, and bunch all the skills into 1 lump sum, then I am rewarded with a faster training time if I respec. Kind of a cost benefit result. Once again, EVE is not a game of instant gratification. I don't know why people want to turn it into that.

TRhe key point to counter this is that in any given skillset all players can reach the same point in a reasonable time. There is no way at all that an old player can keep an indefinite edvantae over a newer player as for all hulls there are only a finite number of skills to max out that affect that hull. Learning implants are a choice to increase sp rate for an additional risk. In terms of reading up on it I learnt all i needed to know from the tutorials.

Peaopl say that implants are an iilusion of choice but I would argue against that. All players are at the same base level of sp accrual, if you wish to amend that you can change your attributes with a remap or buy the relevant implants. Ultimately you will reach the same end point attainable by every single player, just at the rate you choose to specialize too.

Keep stripping out the rpg elements from Eve and you will gradually remove the 'soul' of the game.

[quote=Daichi Yamato]

Most of our guys don't like charity, it's a principle thing and whilst yes we could do this, it doesnt detract from the point - implants currently offer too much gain imo. And to be clear, it's not that they don't PvP - we only PvP, just that newbies feel the no/low grade implants a lot more than older players.

Some doctrines you can, some you can't. Irrespective, the hulls alone matter, the fitting skills and weapons matter. Say we have a minnie crusier doctrine but an amarr BS one. That's minnie/amarr frig, minnie/amarr cruiser, amarr BC, amarr BS. Small proj, medium proj, small laser, medium laser large laser, controlled bursts, prop mod skills, navigation, cap skills, armor skills, shield skills, tackle skills, drone skills (nav, dura, interfacing, small/med/sentry/heavy). And that's just from the top of my head and of course the fun part is that a skill plan in someone that young needs a fairly even attribute spread across 4 values meaning the oft taken approach of 2 implants in the primaries for people on more mature plans doesnt work well in this case.

I'm not even talking about putting these to big numbers, even getting them up to about 4 is going to take some months across the board. Months which implants will, as shown, take pretty large chunks from.

When you live in null in a fast tackle frigate, your life expectancy is exceptionally low to the point it is often stupid to even bother sticking in implants until you log for the day to last you until the next death. This is stupid and at odds with risk/reward. What reward do you get for using implants in null that is so much better than high/low sec? Because the risk is off the charts in comparison. It is literally pants on head dumb.


I'm sure there are people here who have forgotten their early days or were snowflakes of "screw it all, no implants, into null YOLO never hurt me, kids don't know they're born"....but let's not pretend they are the majority eh? The current system is poor, it rewards risk averse gameplay and does create pressure on newbies to a disproportionate degree - even if you feel it shouldn't the reality is that it does.

@Aiyshimin: You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Zero. Go find me Gelidus in high sec.

@Corraidhin Farsaidh: Those things you mention are all balanced against income - they have nothing to do with skills. You say it yourself, the implant risk is accepted - what is the reward? Isk can be made anywhere, skills are a fixed duration and nothing but implants assist these. Greater isk potential does nothing to help skills. Riding in bubble space with serious implants is daft (some exceptions, cap ships etc), so why should they learn slower than captain carebear™?

Hell there's still no meaningful choice. High/low - use the best you can because you'll essentially never lose them. Null/WH - don't bother unless you've got more isk than Chribba or suck up slower training times like the peasants you are. It is not in any way a meaningful choice - and if it WAS, people wouldnt be having these debates and most of the null pods wouldn't be empty.

If pod loss was more consistent across the board - be that easier to die outside of bubbles or harder to die in bubbles (to the point there was something you could reasonably do about it), then those choices would become somewhat more meaningful.

Various ways to fix it, I guess when you crystallise it down, it comes down to the all or nothing odds of pod survivability in bubbles vs no bubbles - those are what screw up the risk. However bubble immunity on pods can't be allowed and they're hardly going to let them into empire so we're left addressing the reward side of that scale.


So what would be bad about boosters lasting $DAYS which carry over pod loss? That squares the risk/reward out, stimulates markets out of high/lowsec stagnation and ceases to penalise those who live in bubble space needlessly.

@Aiyshimin: You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Zero. Go find me Gelidus in high sec.

@Corraidhin Farsaidh: Those things you mention are all balanced against income - they have nothing to do with skills. You say it yourself, the implant risk is accepted - what is the reward? Isk can be made anywhere, skills are a fixed duration and nothing but implants assist these. Greater isk potential does nothing to help skills. Riding in bubble space with serious implants is daft (some exceptions, cap ships etc), so why should they learn slower than captain carebear™?

Hell there's still no meaningful choice. High/low - use the best you can because you'll essentially never lose them. Null/WH - don't bother unless you've got more isk than Chribba or suck up slower training times like the peasants you are. It is not in any way a meaningful choice - and if it WAS, people wouldnt be having these debates and most of the null pods wouldn't be empty.

If pod loss was more consistent across the board - be that easier to die outside of bubbles or harder to die in bubbles (to the point there was something you could reasonably do about it), then those choices would become somewhat more meaningful.

Various ways to fix it, I guess when you crystallise it down, it comes down to the all or nothing odds of pod survivability in bubbles vs no bubbles - those are what screw up the risk. However bubble immunity on pods can't be allowed and they're hardly going to let them into empire so we're left addressing the reward side of that scale.


So what would be bad about boosters lasting $DAYS which carry over pod loss? That squares the risk/reward out, stimulates markets out of high/lowsec stagnation and ceases to penalise those who live in bubble space needlessly.